- 'It's Been in the Family For Years' is No Argument26th Jul 2010
- Driving: Mobile Phone, No - Dictaphone, Yes19th Jul 2010
- 'Toxic Sofa' Victims Win Compensation12th Jul 2010
- Canoe Fraudsters Must Repay Nearly £600,0006th Jul 2010
- In Brief - HMRC to Name and Shame Tax Dodgers28th Jun 2010
- Who Chooses the Executor?14th Jun 2010
- Chef Entitled to Second Helping of Justice7th Jun 2010
- Court Agrees to Reverse Settlement Error2nd Jun 2010
- Privacy Cases Will Be Dealt With On Their Facts25th May 2010
- Smoker Loses Out in Asbestos Settlement18th May 2010
- Man Wins Planning Battle Over House Disguised as a Barn12th May 2010
- Sikh’s Widow Awarded £415,000 for Egg Allergy Death5th May 2010
- General Intention Cannot Preserve Will27th Apr 2010
- Car Turning Area Creates Right Over Property14th Apr 2010
- iPod Deafness is User's Fault30th Mar 2010
- Summary of Budget Changes for Individuals25th Mar 2010
- Compensation for Honeymoon Ruined by Dysentery15th Mar 2010
- Mercy Killing is Not the Same as Assisted Suicide8th Mar 2010
- Husband Ordered Out of Ancestral Home23rd Feb 2010
- Verbal Will Directs £1/2 Million to Aunt27th Jan 2010
- £140,000 Mesothelioma Payout for Grandfather22nd Jan 2010
- Will Writer in the Dock15th Jan 2010
- Will Valid if Testator Had Capacity When it Was Drafted6th Jan 2010
- European Inheritance Law Overhaul Proposed23rd Dec 2009
- Supervision Failure Costs Council14th Dec 2009
- £240,000 for Holidaymaker Poisoned by Worm9th Dec 2009
- Ward & Rider Achieve Lexcel and Bronze IIP Accreditation1st Dec 2009
- Bank Charges Decision 27th Nov 2009
- Funding the First Step On the Ladder23rd Nov 2009
- Nightjack 'Outing' Bodes ill for Bloggers 18th Nov 2009
- When Equal Shares Change9th Nov 2009
- Executor With Hand in Till Jailed3rd Nov 2009
- Asbestos Damages for Widower26th Oct 2009
- Deskbound Worker Wins Compensation For Blood Clot19th Oct 2009
- Don’t Get Angry With the Council!12th Oct 2009
- Family Court Protects Children From Media Intrusion5th Oct 2009
- Pensions Case Moves to Europe23rd Sep 2009
- Estate Property - HMRC Recommend Three Valuations23rd Sep 2009
- Judge Uses Discretion in Contact Proceedings Case16th Sep 2009
- Past Exposure to Noise Warrants Compensation8th Sep 2009
- What Happens if I Don't Make a Will?28th Aug 2009
- Be Careful What You Claim For19th Aug 2009
- Swine Flu - Guidance for Employers10th Aug 2009
- Child Maintenance Rule Changes7th Aug 2009
- Stay Where You Are!4th Aug 2009
- PreNuptial Agreements - Parliament Must Act if Law to Change29th Jul 2009
- Easements - What They Mean at the Time22nd Jul 2009
- £10,000 for Vibration Injury14th Jul 2009
- Shared Residence Does Not Create Priority Housing Need13th Jul 2009
- Planning Permission is Only Part of the Story10th Jul 2009
- Risk Minimisation Necessary, Says Court6th Jul 2009
- Executors be Warned2nd Jul 2009
- Delayed Lump Sum Payments on Divorce1st Jul 2009
- E-Conveyancing - Where Are We Now?29th Jun 2009
- Cyclist Riding Without Helmet Awarded Full Compensation10th Jun 2009
- Making the Boundaries Clear10th Jun 2009
- Credit Crunch - Divorce Settlements in the Spotlight10th Jun 2009
- New Website Goes Live!27th May 2009
When Equal Shares Change
It may be assumed that when a couple purchase a property in equal shares, that is how ownership remains, but it isn’t necessarily so.
In a recent case, the High Court had to rule on the ownership of a house, which had been bought for £30,000 by a cohabiting man and woman who lived in it between 1985 and 1993. When the relationship broke up, the man moved out and ceased to contribute to the mortgage and running expenses of the property and made no contribution towards maintenance of the couple’s children. He bought another property and moved there. The couple cashed in a joint insurance policy to assist him to finance his new home.
The question of the respective shares of ownership of the property had to be decided in 2008, by which time the property’s value had risen to £245,000. The County Court ruled that the share of the remaining former partner should be 90 per cent. On appeal, the High Court upheld this decision.
One interesting aspect of such cases is that the Court is primarily concerned with the intention of the two parties with regard to their beneficial interests, given the change in their circumstances. In the absence of any indication by words or conduct as to how the beneficial interests should be altered, the appropriate criterion is what the Court considers to be fair and just.




















