Single Name Family Home Constructive Trusts: Is Lloyds Bank v Rosset Still Good Law? – Radcliffe Chambers

Posted February 8th, 2019 in constructive trusts, divorce, matrimonial home, news by sally

‘The breakdown of a loving relationship can cause both emotional and legal uncertainties. From a property law perspective, the key question is: who gets what? In most cases, the most valuable part of this question is: who gets the house?’

Full Story

Radcliffe Chambers, 14th January 2019


Finance and Divorce Update, April 2018 – Family Law Week

‘Claire Molyneux Senior Associate, and Naomi Shelton, Associate, Mills & Reeve LLP analyse the news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during March 2018.’

Full Story

Family Law Week, 15th April 2018


Bloom v Bloom: The risks of failing to provide full and frank disclosure in financial remedy proceedings – Family Law

‘Bloom v Bloom [2018] Lexis Citation 16 concerned the applicant wife’s application that judgments in the financial remedy proceedings, where the respondent husband had been found to have defrauded her parents, should be published un-anonymised. The application was granted.’

Full Story

Family Law, 22nd March 2018


Mutual wills: a warning – Family Law

Posted February 12th, 2018 in constructive trusts, news, wills by tracey

‘In the case of Legg and others v Burton and others [2017] EWHC 2088 (Ch) the claimants, children of Mrs Clark, successfully established a constructive trust under the doctrine of mutual wills. This had the effect of making invalid the 13 subsequent wills the deceased made between 2004 and 2014, after her husband died. It was held by His Honour Judge Matthews in the Chancery Division of the Bristol District Registry that the wills Mrs Clark made with her husband in mirror terms in 2000 were mutual wills and as such there was a binding agreement with her husband, which she could not go back on after his death.’

Full Story

Family Law, 9th February 2018


The mechanics of proprietary estoppel – Nearly Legal

Posted August 12th, 2016 in appeals, constructive trusts, estoppel, news by sally

‘What is the difference between, on the one hand, Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd v Cobbe [2008] UKHL 55 and, on the other hand, Thorner v Majors [2009] UKHL 18? The standard answer is that Cobbe involved commercial parties who, well, ought to have known better than to rely on an incomplete agreement (no unconscionability), whereas, in Thorner, we were dealing with the delightfully taciturn farmers of the Quantock Hills (unconscionability in the circs).’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 10th August 2016


Supreme Court: money owed by insolvent agent to its principal not held on constructive trust –

‘Money which an agent personally owed to its principal at the point the former became insolvent is not held on “constructive trust” for the principal, instead forming part of the assets of the insolvent business to be divided up between all creditors in a proportionate way, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’

Full story, 29th July 2016


Don’t Overlook Overeaching – Tanfield Chambers

Posted April 26th, 2016 in banking, constructive trusts, conveyancing, interest, mortgages, news by sally

‘The case of AIB Group (UK) plc v Turner [2015] EWHC 2994 (Ch), heard over a number of days in the Birmingham District Registry towards the end of 2015, is something of a puzzle.’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 22nd April 2016


‘In The Alternative’: Proprietary Estoppel in Cohabitation Cases – The Impact of the Decision in Blackburn v. Southwell – No. 5 Chambers

Posted April 7th, 2015 in appeals, cohabitation, constructive trusts, estoppel, news by sally

‘Last summer the case of Southwell v Blackburn came before the Court of Appeal. The subject of the appeal was the correct application of the equitable remedy of proprietary estoppel within the context of a cohabiting couple. Judgment was handed down on 16th October 2014 (reported under [2014] EWCA Civ 1347) and was subsequently described in the national press as a ‘landmark ruling’ in relation to the rights and entitlements of unmarried couples when their relationships come to an end. This article examines whether the decision has in fact moved the law on in such seismic terms.’

Full story

No. 5 Chambers, 1st April 2015


Davies v O’Kelly – WLR Daily

Posted December 18th, 2014 in appeals, constructive trusts, law reports, trusts by sally

Davies v O’Kelly [2014] EWCA Civ 1606; [2014] WLR (D) 535

‘In general, equity would not come to the aid of a party who had to rely on his unlawful purpose, but if his right to an equitable interest in property could be identified without the need to rely on his unlawful purpose it might be enforced. In particular, notwithstanding an unlawful purpose between a couple in purchasing property, where the couple later separated it was possible, in the case of a constructive trust just as in the case of a resulting trust, to find, where one of the parties was advancing a claim to his beneficial interest in the relevant property, that he had no need to rely on the unlawful purpose and could therefore advance his claim.’

WLR Daily, 11th December 2014


Proprietary remedies, fiduciary bribes, and dishonest assistants: FHR and Novoship – Employment Law Blog

Posted October 2nd, 2014 in appeals, bribery, constructive trusts, fiduciary duty, news, Supreme Court by tracey

‘Directors and senior employees will often have wide-ranging managerial power over their companies: the ability to commit or disburse company assets, with significant autonomy and limited detailed oversight. Those in such positions will not always act responsibly, and will be attractive targets to others seeking a share of the potential spoils. In two important judgments from July, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court significantly increased the remedies available against both bribed fiduciaries and those who bribe them.’

Full story

Employment Law Blog, 2nd Ocotber 2014


The quasi-trust – The Barristers’ Hub

‘As every student of equity knows well, a trust is a type of property ownership in which one or more people (the trustee(s)) hold property on behalf of one or more other people (the beneficiary/ies), exercise all the powers of an owner of property in relation to third parties, but are bound to do so for the exclusive interests of the beneficiaries. A trust can be express, made by a formal written implement, or implied, either by transfer of property without explanation (a resulting trust) or in circumstances where the common intention of the parties is or is deemed to be for the property to be held on trust (a constructive trust). Both express and implied trusts are genuine trusts: the property is owned by the trustee, subject to the interest of the beneficiaries.’

Full story

The Barristers’ Hub, 1st August 2014


Equitable Interests in Patents and Patent Applications – NIPC Law

Posted April 11th, 2014 in constructive trusts, equity, news, patents by sally

‘In Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Others [2007] Bus LR 1796, [2007] BusLR 1796, [2008] 1 All ER 425, [2007] UKHL 43 Lord Hoffmann described s.7 (2) and (3) of the Patents Act 1977 as “an exhaustive code for determining who is entitled to the grant of a patent.”‘

Full story

NIPC Law, 10th April 2014


Williams (Respondent) v Central Bank of Nigeria (Appellant) – Supreme Court

Posted February 21st, 2014 in constructive trusts, fraud, law reports, limitations by sally

Williams (Respondent) v Central Bank of Nigeria (Appellant) [2014] UKSC 10 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 19th February 2014


When are the proceeds of an agent’s breach of fiduciary duty held on trust? – Sports Law Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers

“In FHR European Ventures LLP & ors v Mankarious & ors [2013] EWCA Civ 17 the Court of Appeal returned to the question when an agent holds proceeds of a breach of fiduciary duty as constructive trustee for his principal. The decision is required reading for sports lawyers asked to advise on breach of fiduciary duty cases. That is so not least because FHR addresses the decision in Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 347 in which the Court considered that it was bound by Lister & Co v Stubbs 45 Ch D 1 (CA) to reject the broad approach to the imposition of constructive trusts in this field which was described in Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid [1994] 1 AC 324 (PC).”

Full story

Sports Law Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 20th May 2013


Secret commissions and proprietary claims – where are we now? – 11 Stone Buildings

Posted March 21st, 2013 in agency, appeals, bribery, constructive trusts, news by sally

“Practitioners were trained to believe that an agent would hold a bribe on trust for his principal. Then came Sinclair v Versailles which appeared to have decided that the principal’s remedy would be merely personal. Now everything seems to have changed again. In this ‘Insider’ note Peter Head examines the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in FHR European Ventures LLP v Mankarious and considers where we are now.”

Full story (PDF)

11 Stone Buildings, March 2013


Cohabitation Update – Zenith Chambers

Posted October 30th, 2012 in cohabitation, constructive trusts, news by sally

“The purpose of this seminar is to consider the law on constructive trusts following Jones v. Kernott and recent developments regarding cohabiting couples.”

Full story (PDF)

Zenith Chambers, 25th October 2012


Shovelar and others v Lane and others – WLR Daily

Posted July 14th, 2011 in appeals, constructive trusts, costs, executors, law reports, wills by tracey

Shovelar and others v Lane and others [2011] EWCA Civ 802;  [2011] WLR (D)  224

“The question of the effect of mutual wills upon the distribution of an estate under a later will which was admitted to probate was a matter for the Chancery Division, applying the law of trusts, and it was not a matter of probate law and practice. Accordingly, the unsuccessful executors in an action of that nature were not entitled to rely upon the ‘probate rule’ so as to justify departure from the usual costs rule.”

WLR Daily, 12th July2011


Neighbours’ High Court feud over curfews, trellises and hosepipes – Daily Telegraph

Posted March 12th, 2009 in constructive trusts, news, rights of way by sally

“A feud between neighbours turned so bitter that one couple tried to impose a curfew preventing the other from leaving their home at night, the High Court has heard.”

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 12th March 2009


Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another – Times Law Reports

Posted September 8th, 2008 in constructive trusts, contracts, estoppel, law reports by sally

Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another

House of Lords

“Where the claimant had entered into an oral agreement with defendants in connection with the redevelopment of their property, their unconscionable behaviour in withdrawing from the agreement once planning permission for the redevelopment had been obtained did not result in a proprietary estoppel or a constructive trust in favour of the claimant.”

The Times, 8th September 2008


Please note the Times Law Reports are only availabe free on Times online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and another – WLR Daily

Posted August 18th, 2008 in constructive trusts, contracts, estoppel, law reports by sally

Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and another [2008] UKHL 55; [2008] WLR (D) 293

“A claimant who had entered into an oral agreement with the defendants in respect of the redevelopment of a property had no claim against them in proprietary estoppel or constructive trust based on their unconscionable withdrawal from the agreement, but was entitled to a quantum meruit in respect of money and services which he had provided.”

WLR Daily, 15th August 2008


Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICRL series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.