References: [2003] EWCA Civ 942, [2004] 1 FLR 394
Links: Bailii
Ratio: The couple had lived together at the property without being married for several years. The house was held in the man’s sole name, and after his death she sought a half share in it. It was established that she had been told she should have a half share in the house during his life, and that she had accepted obligations to the bank on the strength of that promise. The executors contended that it has been intended only that she should acquire an interest which would persist during his lifetime.
Held: Mr Freeman and Miss Hyett rendered themselves jointly and severally liable to the Bank by the very transaction by which Miss Hyett acquired her beneficial interest, they could only reasonably have intended that they should each take a half share. A life insurance policy on joint lives was held for Mrs Hyett only to the extent required to repay the charge, but as to the rest for the executors.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset HL ([1991] 1 AC 107, [1990] 2 WLR 867, [1990] 1 All ER 1111, Bailii, [1990] UKHL 4, Bailii, [1990] UKHL 14)
The house had been bought during the marriage but in the husband’s sole name. The plaintiff’s charge secured the husband’s overdraft. The bank issued possession proceedings. Mr Rosset had left, but Mrs Rosset claimed, as against the bank an interest . . - Cited – Eves v Eves CA ([1975] 1 WLR 1338, Bailii, [1975] 3 All ER 768, [1975] EWCA Civ 3)
The couple were unmarried. The female partner had been led by the male partner to believe, when they set up home together, that the property would belong to them jointly. He had had told her that the only reason why the property was to be acquired . . - Cited – Grant v Edwards and Edwards CA ([1986] 1 Ch 638, [1986] 2 All ER 426, Bailii, [1986] 3 WLR 114, [1986] EWCA Civ 4, [1986] Fam Law 300, [1987] 1 FLR 87)
A couple were not married but lived together in a house in which the plaintiff claimed a beneficial interest on separation. The female partner was told by the male partner that the only reason for not acquiring the property in joint names was . . - Cited – Watt (or Thomas) v Thomas HL ([1947] AC 484, 1947 SC (HL) 45)
The House considered when it was appropriate for an appellate court in Scotland to set aside the judgment at first instance.
Lord Thankerton said: ‘(1) Where a question of fact has been tried by a judge without a jury, and there is no question . . - Cited – Yaxley v Gotts and Another CA (Gazette 14-Jul-99, Times 08-Jul-99, Bailii, [1999] EWCA Civ 1680, [1999] 1 WLR 1217, [2000] Ch 162, [1999] EGCS 92, Bailii, [1999] EWCA Civ 3006, [2000] 1 All ER 711)
The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . . - Cited – Jennings v Rice, Wilson, Marsh, Norris, Norris, and Reed CA (Bailii, [2002] EWCA Civ 159, [2003] 1 P and CR 100, [2003] 1 FCR 501)
The claimant asserted a proprietary estoppel against the respondents. He had worked for the deceased over many years, for little payment, and doing more and more for her. Though he still worked full time at first, he came to spend nights at the . . - Cited – Gissing v Gissing HL ([1970] 3 WLR 255, [1971] AC 886, [1970] 2 All ER 780, Bailii, [1970] UKHL 3)
The family home had been purchased during the marriage in the name of the husband only. The wife asserted that she had a beneficial interest in it.
Held: The principles apply to any case where a beneficial interest in land is claimed by a . . - Cited – Stokes v Anderson CA ([1991] 1 FLR 391)
The claimant had made two payments, amounting together to andpound;12,000, towards the acquisition of the one half share of the defendant’s ex-wife in the net equity (valued at andpound;90,000) in a house in which the claimant and the respondent . . - Cited – Smith v Clerical Medical and General Life Assurance Society CA ([1993] 1 FLR 47)
. .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Van Laethem v Brooker and Another ChD (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 1478 (Ch))
The claimant asserted an interest in several properties by virtue of a common intention constructive trust or by proprietary estoppel. The parties had been engaged to be married.
Held: ‘A [constructive] trust arises in connection with the . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 15 October 2019
Ref: 184606
The post Hyett v Stanley and others: CA 20 Jun 2003 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.