Tackaberry & Anor v Hollis & Ors

Tackaberry & Anor v Hollis & Ors

The Claimants failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that Anthony Tackaberry held the property on trust for his siblings. The evidence showed Anthony provided the purchase price through his own funds and loans, and there was no agreement or common intention at the time of acquisition to share beneficial ownership. Subsequent conduct and correspondence did not establish a trust, and the law does not recognise a concept of family property absent such an agreement.

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
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Trusts, Beneficial Ownership, Family Property, Burden of Proof
Trusts 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
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

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Anthony Tackaberry held 201 Widmore Road, Bromley, on trust for himself and his siblings or was sole beneficial owner
  2. 2 Whether a constructive trust arose in favour of the siblings based on the circumstances of acquisition and subsequent conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that Anthony Tackaberry held the property on trust for his siblings. The evidence showed Anthony provided the purchase price through his own funds and loans, and there was no agreement or common intention at the time of acquisition to share beneficial ownership. Subsequent conduct and correspondence did not establish a trust, and the law does not recognise a concept of family property absent such an agreement.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed