Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Miss Msomi succeeds to the extent of ÂŁ9,800 delivered to Terence Morgan and held on trust for the purpose of purchasing a property for Mrs Morgan; Mrs Morgan fails to prove beneficial ownership of ÂŁ20,000 cash and her claim is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Zhuravleva v Kamalova [2026] EWHC 1041 (Ch) (11 May 2026)
The High Court held that service on the defendant in Spain was valid, rejected objections about translations and email service, and found no limitation bar.
High Court appeal in a property ownership dispute admitted fresh evidence, set aside the forgery finding on the trust deed, and remitted the case for retrial.
Bhattacharya & Anor v Robert Armstrong & Anor [2026] EWHC 759 (Ch) (30 March 2026)
The High Court refused daughters’ bid to set aside an insolvency declaration over property ownership, finding no real prospect of success and holding the application abusive.
The High Court refused non-parties’ bid to set aside a bankruptcy declaration about ownership of a London property, finding no real prospect of success and abuse of process.
Appeal about beneficial shares in a cohabiting couple’s home. The High Court upheld a 80.7%/19.3% division and dismissed challenges to the judge’s weighting of post-separation payments.
Fotheringhame v Nelson [2026] EWHC 632 (Ch) (27 March 2026)
Appeal dismissed in a cohabitee property dispute. The court upheld the trial judge’s 80.7/19.3 beneficial shares and found no material error in the weighing of evidence.
The tribunal dismissed a mother’s land registration applications, finding the properties were gifts to her daughter and that the presumption of advancement was not rebutted.
KI v SI (Sham trusts and intervenor proceedings in financial remedy claims) [2026] EWFC 73 (B) (19 March 2026)
The Family Court held that a trust deed in favour of the wife’s mother was a sham, upheld the father’s trust arrangement, and apportioned sale proceeds of land accordingly.
The lower court failed to provide adequate reasons distinguishing between an assurance of ownership and a right to occupy, and did not properly consider relevant documentary evidence. This constituted a material omission and procedural irregularity. The findings on proprietary estoppel and the resulting orders were not sufficiently reasoned to enable the parties to understand the basis for the decision. The appeal is allowed, the order set aside, and the matter remitted for rehearing.
Source excerpt
Explore more
