Holman v Howes

Holman v Howes

Permission to appeal is granted because there is an arguable case that the judge may have erred in failing to consider the whole course of dealings between the parties in quantifying beneficial interests, and the proprietary estoppel point is also arguable.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Mia Holman; Defendant/respondent: Graham Anthony Kingston Howes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Beneficial Ownership, Trusts of Land, Proprietary Estoppel, Quantification of Beneficial Interests
Property Law Family Law Beneficial Ownership Trusts of Land Proprietary Estoppel Quantification of Beneficial Interests

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mia Holman

Claimant/applicant

Graham Anthony Kingston Howes

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in quantifying the parties' beneficial interests in the property under Gissing v Gissing principles
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of proprietary estoppel prevents the defendant from seeking to deny the claimant's entitlement to remain in the property indefinitely

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is granted because there is an arguable case that the judge may have erred in failing to consider the whole course of dealings between the parties in quantifying beneficial interests, and the proprietary estoppel point is also arguable.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal granted

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on both the Gissing v Gissing and proprietary estoppel points.