Hudson v Hathway [2022] EWHC 631 (QB) (21 March 2022)

Hudson v Hathway [2022] EWHC 631 (QB) (21 March 2022)

In a domestic joint names case with no express declaration of trust, a clear express agreement as to beneficial ownership is sufficient to alter beneficial shares without the need for separate proof of detrimental reliance; the requirement is unconscionability, which can be satisfied by the agreement itself.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 631
Parties
Appellant (claimant): Lee Hudson; Respondent (defendant): Jayne Hathway
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court (queen's Bench Division) on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Trusts, Beneficial Ownership, Joint Ownership, Cohabitation, Unmarried Couples, Detrimental Reliance, Unconscionability
Property Law Equity Constructive Trusts Beneficial Ownership Joint Ownership Cohabitation Unmarried Couples Detrimental Reliance +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Hudson

Appellant (claimant)

Jayne Hathway

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court (queen's Bench Division) on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether detrimental reliance is required to alter beneficial shares in a jointly owned family home absent an express declaration of trust
  2. 2 Whether a common intention alone suffices to alter beneficial shares in such cases

Ratio Decidendi

In a domestic joint names case with no express declaration of trust, a clear express agreement as to beneficial ownership is sufficient to alter beneficial shares without the need for separate proof of detrimental reliance; the requirement is unconscionability, which can be satisfied by the agreement itself.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Ms Hathway declared sole equitable owner of Picnic House
  • No requirement for separate proof of detriment in this context