STACK V DOWDEN ESSAY QUESTION

Sign in or Register. English law gives no special rights to cohabitees who are not married or in a civil partnership. Remember me on this computer. March 24, Date written: Case laws have squarely been on the issue of common intention. Work can be downloaded instantly after payment or within 2 business days following essay submission. Imputation was not an option open to the courts.

The case of Hunter v Moss relates to the requirement of certainty of subject matter within creation trusts. However Martin Dixon provides reasons as to why this has been the case. Mandy died in March Sign in or Register. It is unfortunate, however, that such developments have had the consequence of adding layers of complexities to the law, as formal legal principles of proprietary ownership were, from time to time, laxed, or rejected 1 See Knight v Knight 3 Beav , for the three certainties for an expressed trust to come into existence:

Equity and Trust Law Essays

The next part of the essay which comprises the main body of our discussion seeks to explain what the Supreme Court ruling in Jones did, and what it failed to do, to clarify the law of co-ownership in respect of the beneficial rights of cohabitants. All work is carefully checked for quality. Cathy wrote and signed a letter to Marlene, which contained the following sentence: He has provided for his family and wanted to leave some queestion gifts.

English law gives no special rights to cohabitees who are not married or in a civil partnership. Remember me on this computer. While it was right for joint legal owners to presume joint equitable ownership, it was for the party asserting the equitable ownership to establish a constructive trust in his favour in the case where conveyance was only to a sole legal owner.

  THESIS FASHION DESIGN RSU

It is in this respect that perhaps Jones has also missed a valuable opportunity to bring further clarification to the law. December 12, Date written: Even if she had directly met the mortgage repayments this could not give rise to a resulting trust Curley v Parkes [] EWCA Civ A PayPal account is not nessesary.

stack v dowden essay question

These are considered to be the Common intention constructive trust A common intention constructive trust is based on: Explore the effect of Hunter v Moss on certainty of subject matter. It is not clear that Jerome telling Lena that she would always have a home in the house will be sufficient in itself to establish the required common intention — the cases above all have additional factors, such as excuses as to why the claimant was not given legal title: Help Center Find new research papers in: Registering is fast and easy Register.

Equity & Trust Law

We’re friendly and helpful too, so if you have any questions please do diwden Cathy and her brother, Sean, were the beneficiaries of a family trust, in equal shares. However, the case is best distinguished on its unusual facts. Where the land concerned is a family home, the courts will almost always prefer the common intention constructive trust over the doctrine of resulting trusts see Stack v Dowden [] 2 AC ; compare Laskar v Laskar [] 1 WLR Skip to main content.

  CSC DLP CASE STUDY

Greater clarification in this respect would have been doowden. This is another area that the judges in Jones overlooked.

stack v dowden essay question

May 12, Date written: It relates strongly to the beneficiary principle The facts are dealt with in the ensuing footnotes This problem question concerns the validity of charitable gifts. Therefore Lena needs to establish that she has queation proprietary interest in the house using the conventional rules of property law. Had the parties intended their shares to be changed, it really was for the parties themselves to clearly demonstrate this.

stack v dowden essay question

The implications of the decision in Jones v Kernott. No explicit explanation whatsoever was given as to whether or not the exact same principles applied to both types of ownership cases, although it could be arguably inferred from the judgment that the case, for the most part, dealt with the type of case that was at hand.

Equity and Trust Law Level: In the words of the Law Commission Discussion Paper48, this is because of the impossibility to devise a rigid framework for the ascertainment and quantification of beneficial interests in a shared home which can operate fairly and evenly across the diversity of domestic qusstion which are now to be encountered.

Mandy died in March