Holman v Howes

Holman v Howes

The property was purchased with the common intention of both parties that each would have a beneficial interest in it, and the evidence supports equal shares. Assurances given to the claimant entitle her to occupy the property for as long as she wishes, but do not exclude the defendant's beneficial interest. Immediate sale is not ordered due to the original intentions and hardship to the claimant.

Parties
Claimant: Mia Holman; Defendant: Graham Anthony Kingston Howes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Beneficial Ownership, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, Joint Venture, Proprietary Estoppel, Occupation Rights
Property Law Trusts Law Family Law Constructive Trust Beneficial Ownership Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 Joint Venture Proprietary Estoppel +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mia Holman

Claimant

Graham Anthony Kingston Howes

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the property is held beneficially for the claimant alone or in equal shares
  2. 2 Whether the property should be sold and the claimant evicted
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is liable for asbestos-related damages

Ratio Decidendi

The property was purchased with the common intention of both parties that each would have a beneficial interest in it, and the evidence supports equal shares. Assurances given to the claimant entitle her to occupy the property for as long as she wishes, but do not exclude the defendant's beneficial interest. Immediate sale is not ordered due to the original intentions and hardship to the claimant.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed in part.

Orders

  • Declaration that the property is held by the defendant on trust for himself and the claimant in equal shares, with the claimant entitled to exclusive occupation for as long as unsold.
  • Property not to be sold for the time being without claimant's consent.