Tackaberry & Anor v Hollis & Ors [2007] EWHC 2633 (Ch) (13 November 2007)

Tackaberry & Anor v Hollis & Ors [2007] EWHC 2633 (Ch) (13 November 2007)

The claimants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that Anthony Tackaberry held the property on trust for his siblings or their estates. The evidence showed Anthony provided the purchase price (via his own funds and secured loans), repaid family loans, and there was no express or inferred agreement or common intention at acquisition to share beneficial ownership. The property was not subject to a constructive trust in favour of the claimants.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2633 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Douglas Francis Michael Tackaberry; Claimant: John Antony Tackaberry; Defendant: Peter Hollis; Defendant: Pauline Cobbett; Defendant: Anthony Beacham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Trusts, Beneficial Ownership, Family Property, Burden of Proof
Trusts and Estates Property Law Constructive Trusts Beneficial Ownership Family Property Burden of Proof

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas Francis Michael Tackaberry

Claimant

John Antony Tackaberry

Claimant

Peter Hollis

Defendant

Pauline Cobbett

Defendant

Anthony Beacham

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Anthony Tackaberry held 201 Widmore Road on constructive trust for his siblings or their estates
  2. 2 Whether the property was beneficially owned solely by Anthony or shared among family members

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that Anthony Tackaberry held the property on trust for his siblings or their estates. The evidence showed Anthony provided the purchase price (via his own funds and secured loans), repaid family loans, and there was no express or inferred agreement or common intention at acquisition to share beneficial ownership. The property was not subject to a constructive trust in favour of the claimants.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claimants' claim to an interest in 201 Widmore Road is dismissed.
  • No declaration of trust is made in favour of the claimants.