Cattle v Evans & Anor (Rev 1) [2011] EWHC 945 (Ch) (19 April 2011)

Cattle v Evans & Anor (Rev 1) [2011] EWHC 945 (Ch) (19 April 2011)

The claimant did not acquire a beneficial interest in the Cross Hands property as there was no agreement or understanding to that effect and the parties kept their finances separate. However, the law of intestacy did not make reasonable financial provision for the claimant as a cohabitant, and she is entitled to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 945 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Christina Cattle; Defendant: Paul John Evans; Defendant: Gareth Evans
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Inheritance Act Claim and Constructive Trust Claim / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Claim for constructive trust dismissed; claim for reasonable financial provision under the 1975 Act allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, Constructive Trust, Reasonable Financial Provision, Intestacy
Succession Equity Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 Constructive Trust Reasonable Financial Provision Intestacy

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christina Cattle

Claimant

Paul John Evans

Defendant

Gareth Evans

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Inheritance Act Claim and Constructive Trust Claim / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a beneficial interest in the Cross Hands property under a constructive trust
  2. 2 Whether reasonable financial provision has been made for the claimant under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant did not acquire a beneficial interest in the Cross Hands property as there was no agreement or understanding to that effect and the parties kept their finances separate. However, the law of intestacy did not make reasonable financial provision for the claimant as a cohabitant, and she is entitled to provision for her maintenance by way of a sum to purchase a property up to £110,000, held on trust for the defendants subject to her right to reside for life.

Court Disposition

Claim for constructive trust dismissed; claim for reasonable financial provision under the 1975 Act allowed in part.

Orders

  • Payment from the estate of a sum for the purchase of a new home for the claimant at a price of no more than £110,000 and costs incidental to that purchase.
  • The property to be held on trust for the defendants subject to the claimant's right to reside for life.