HUDSON v HATHWAY

HUDSON v HATHWAY

Detrimental reliance is not required to alter beneficial shares in a joint names family home purchased without express declaration of trusts; a clear express agreement evidencing common intention suffices to establish a constructive trust and sole beneficial ownership.

Parties
Appellant (claimant): Lee Hudson; Respondent (defendant): Jayne Hathway
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Trusts, Beneficial Ownership, Joint Tenancy, Common Intention, Detrimental Reliance
Property Law Equity Constructive Trusts Beneficial Ownership Joint Tenancy Common Intention Detrimental Reliance

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 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Hudson

Appellant (claimant)

Jayne Hathway

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether detrimental reliance is required to alter beneficial shares in a joint names family home without express declaration of trusts
  2. 2 Whether the respondent acted to her detriment or changed her position in reliance on the agreement

Ratio Decidendi

Detrimental reliance is not required to alter beneficial shares in a joint names family home purchased without express declaration of trusts; a clear express agreement evidencing common intention suffices to establish a constructive trust and sole beneficial ownership.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Ms Hathway declared sole equitable owner of Picnic House