Head of Divorce & Financial Remedy, Zoë Saunders was led by Alexander Learmonth KC acting for the appellant in the Court of Appeal in high profile TOLATA case of Hudson v Hathway [2022] EWCA Civ 1648.
The livestream of the hearing can be found here.
This was an appeal from Kerr J in the High Court [2022] EWHC 631 (QB) which related to two key issues: in a case about equitable ownership of a family home purchased in joint names, initially with equal ownership rights, where the unmarried parties later separate, must a party claiming a subsequent increase in her equitable share necessarily have acted to her detriment? Or does a common intention alone suffice to alter the beneficial shares? And if the former, was the judge right to decide that the requirement of detriment was met?
The Court of Appeal held that a party claiming a subsequent increase in her equitable share as a result of a post-acquisition changed common intention must show detrimental reliance on that changed common intention. They also held that the trial judge was right to decide on the facts that the requirement of detrimental reliance was met.
In response to a point not argued below, which the respondents were invited to take on the first day of the appeal, the court also held that the communications which expressed the parties’ common intention that Ms Hathway should have the whole equitable interest in the family home in fact complied with the necessary statutory formalities for the appellant to have disposed of his interest in the property.
Zoë has extensive experience of advising and representing clients in relation to disputes involving TOLATA and additional issues which often accompany them such as civil and partnership disputes, intervention in matrimonial financial remedy cases, Proceeds of Crime Act claims and claims for financial provision under schedule 1 of the Children Act. Read more here.
Related articles:
- The impact on cohabitation claims of Hudson v Hathway (published by Lexis Nexis and written by Vivien Croly, St John’s Chambers)
- EWCA asserts that cohabitant must prove detriment in claim for increased share of house (published by STEP)