Post by B S on Mar 12, 2013 4:11:35 GMT 4
"Keeping Up with the Jones Case: Establishing Constructive Trusts in ‘Sole Legal Owner’ Scenarios" Free Download
University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 7/2013
BRIAN SLOAN, University of Cambridge - Robinson College, Cambridge, University of Cambridge - Faculty of Law
Email: bds26@cam.ac.uk
This paper considers the influence of the Supreme Court decision in Jones v Kernott on subsequent cases. It focuses on situations with which Jones was not directly concerned, namely where there is only one legal owner of a home and a non-legal-owning cohabitant seeks to establish that he has an equitable interest in it under a common intention constructive trust. The paper argues that while judges have mostly accepted that Jones is relevant to such sole-owner cases, they have had few opportunities (and taken fewer) to move beyond the restrictive approach of Lloyds Bank v Rosset and allow novel outcomes in the light of Jones as yet. It is contended that this state of affairs could ultimately produce a conservative approach that is undesirable for cohabitants who make indirect or non-financial contributions to shared lives and remain without statutory property and financial provision on relationship breakdown.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/PIP_Journal.cfm?pip_jrnl=1685456&partid=980087&did=164270&eid=182221566
University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 7/2013
BRIAN SLOAN, University of Cambridge - Robinson College, Cambridge, University of Cambridge - Faculty of Law
Email: bds26@cam.ac.uk
This paper considers the influence of the Supreme Court decision in Jones v Kernott on subsequent cases. It focuses on situations with which Jones was not directly concerned, namely where there is only one legal owner of a home and a non-legal-owning cohabitant seeks to establish that he has an equitable interest in it under a common intention constructive trust. The paper argues that while judges have mostly accepted that Jones is relevant to such sole-owner cases, they have had few opportunities (and taken fewer) to move beyond the restrictive approach of Lloyds Bank v Rosset and allow novel outcomes in the light of Jones as yet. It is contended that this state of affairs could ultimately produce a conservative approach that is undesirable for cohabitants who make indirect or non-financial contributions to shared lives and remain without statutory property and financial provision on relationship breakdown.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/PIP_Journal.cfm?pip_jrnl=1685456&partid=980087&did=164270&eid=182221566