The Unmarried Family Flashcards
In the matter of an application by Denise Brewster for Judicial Review
Woman whose partner died unexpectedly had application for judicial review allowed due to length of cohabitation
Hammond v Mitchell
“In general their financial rights have to be worked out according to their strict entitlements in equity, a process which is anything but forward looking and involves, on the contrary, a painfully detailed retrospect”
Re N (A Child)
Order made for £220,000 to purchase property for mother and child and £20,000 to furnish. Property held on trust for father, reverts when child finishes full time education.
N v C
12 year old child moved to live with father, mother had extensive contact. Mother subsequently applied under schedule 1 Children act for maintenance order and lump sump for refurbishment of property (which was owned by the father already). Father was willing to allow mother to stay in his property for period of time and pay a small sum to rent other property. Offer refused. Court held that mother had earning capacity far greater than her current income, could support herself. She had turned down several reasonable proposals. Court did not have jurisdiction to make order in favour of unmarried parent with care.
Stack v Dowden
Couple in 20 year cohabiting relationship, had 4 children together. First property they owned together was registered in Dowden’s sole name, next property was in joint names with no express declaration. Could establish beneficial interests in this case, D at 65% and S at 35%. Kept finances seperate throughout relationship and she worked harder, displaced general presumption that equity follows the law.
Fowler v Barron
Joint ownership will sometimes apply even where one person has paid all of the cost of the property - more extreme than in Stack v Dowden, separation of finances was missing so the court decided that a presumption of equal shares in the property should be applied.
Jones v Kernott
Couple formed relationship, had two children, bought a property which was registered in joint names (she provided the deposit, they shared mortgage payments and bills). When they broke up, he moved out and used the money from a cashed in jointly held insurance policy to buy his own house. 10 years later he wished to claim a beneficial share in the family home, which had vastly inflated in value. Ms Jones applied under s14 TLATA for a declaration that she owned the entire beneficial share in the property, held - the common intention had changed. In reliance of Stack v Dowden, once the presumption of joint ownership has been displaced, the court must infer or impute the division of interest in the property. Mr Kernott got a 10% share.
Curly v Parkes
Resulting trust must be formed by direct payments into the initial acquisition of the property.
Oxley v Hiscock
Entire course of dealings approach to resulting trusts
Eves v Eves
Common intention constructive trust - woman and man formed relationship, he bought house for them both to live in, told her that the only reason she was not on the title was that she was too young. She worked on the house, carrying out demolition and decorating work. When relationship ended, he denied her an interest in the property, held - she had a 25% interest in the house (Denning).
Burns v Burns
Couple cohabited, had children, he bought house, she made some contribution to taxes, bills and white goods, but he had not asked her to do this as he could easily pay for it himself. Held - she did not have an interest in the property, no evidence of common intention or significant financial contribution. (potentially an unfair decision?)
Curran v Collins
33 year relationship, cohabiting from 2002. He bought house in 2007 with proceeds from sale of previous property, mortgage funds and money from his father. She said they had agreed she’d have a half share in the house, and that she’d made financial contributions to bills and mortgage, and she did all the paperwork for his businesses. Helf - no trust, burden on claimant to displace presumption, no financial contribution.
Pascoe v Turner
Couple entered relationship, she moved into his house. When he begun a relationship with another woman, he said the house was hers, she spent savings on improving the house. Held - he was bound to keep his promise under estoppel and had to convey the house to her.
Lissimore v Downing
Woman moved into big country estate with boyfriend. She claimed beneficial interest in the property. He had referred to her as “lady of the manor” and told her not to “worry her pretty little head” about money. Detriment - she gave up her part time job and spent divorce money on car. Claimed £150,000 lump sum to be used to purchase a home for herself. Held - no sufficient promises or assurances, and at any rate not sufficient detriment.
Gow v Grant (Scotland_
Gow and Grant begun relationship, when she lost her job he encouraged her to move in with him and not look for new job, and also to sell her property. They used money on holidays and timeshare. When relationship ended, she found herself homeless and with little money, claimed under Scottish legislation. Held - entitled to award of £39,500. It was sufficient to show that he had encouraged her to sell her property and that the proceeds of sale were used for the parties jointly. Act allowed for fair compensation.
