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
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.
The DT1 trust deed in favour of JF is void and a sham as it does not reflect the true intentions of the parties and lacks evidential basis; IF has a beneficial interest in SDF under a valid trust (DT2), or alternatively by resulting or constructive trust, entitling him to repayment of £57,500 and 40% of the net sale proceeds, with the remainder split between W and H.
Source excerpt
Riley v Aidiniantz & Anor [2025] EWHC 3222 (Ch) (11 December 2025)
The court refused strike out and summary judgment in a dispute over Rollerteam shares, holding that limitation, release and abuse arguments raised triable issues.
Mother’s advances to Kouri were prima facie repayable, but credit must be given for repayments and voluntary transfers. The obligation is an equitable debt, not a compensatory obligation. No evidence supports misappropriation of jewellery or receipt of rent for personal benefit. The Heads of Agreement was not intended to be legally binding.
Source excerpt
Kaur v Kaur & Ors (Re the Estate of Raj Kaur) [2025] EWHC 2806 (Ch) (03 November 2025)
The court addressed whether advances from a mother to one daughter were loans or gifts, as well as claims over jewellery, rent, and a family heads of agreement.
AB v CD v EF (Beneficial Interest Application) [2025] EWFC 191 (B) (14 April 2025)
The Family Court held that adjacent land was not a gift to the son but was held on trust for the spouses in equal shares, despite the stamp duty avoidance context.
The Dubai judgment is enforceable in England and Wales as the proceedings did not breach natural justice; the mistaken reference to outdated Dubai law in expert reports was not a substantive procedural defect and could have been remedied in Dubai. The transfer of the Warren House Property and the Money Transfers were transactions at an undervalue made, at least in part, for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of creditors, satisfying section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The presumption of advancement was not rebutted for the gifts, but the statutory test under section 423 was me…
Source excerpt
The court found that the provision of purchase monies by Mr Waites, despite being labelled as a loan for stamp duty purposes, gave rise to a resulting trust in his favour. The doctrine of illegality, as clarified in Patel v Mirza, did not bar enforcement of the resulting trust, as denial of the claim would be disproportionate and not serve the public interest, especially since the correct stamp duty was paid and all parties were aware of the arrangement.
Source excerpt
Hyde v Stunt (Re Insolvency Act 1986) [2024] EWHC 630 (Ch) (22 March 2024)
The High Court decided who owned a Van Dyck painting sold in 2013. It held Geoffrey Stunt was the contracting buyer and had beneficial ownership, so the work did not vest in James Stunt’s bankruptcy estate.
The High Court held that James Stunt was the contracting buyer of a Van Dyck painting and that his father’s payment did not rebut the presumption of advancement.
Explore more
