Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/6

Click to flip

6 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
What is the leading authority on joint legal title common intention constructive trusts?
Jones v Kernott [2010]
What is the difference between establishing a claim under a joint legal title case to a sole legal title case?
there is no requirement of the acquisition hurdle as both parties already have a beneficial interest.
What was the dicta in Stack v Dowden [2007]?
Barry Stack argued that upon separation he was entitled to 50% under the concept of fairness, though his financial contributions only amounted to 35%.
-The HL held that the starting point for a joint legal title case a a 50:50 presumption (which is difficult to dislodge)
-In order to depart from the presumption there would have to be 'unusual' or 'exceptional' circumstances, and the court could take a wide range of factors into account in divining the parties' true intentions.
-the fact that they had strictly separate bank accounts was important.
-The court departed from the 50:50 and awarded Barry Stack 35%
What was the dicta in Jones v Kernott?
-The starting point is still a 50:50 share presumption.
-this presumption can be displaced by evidence that their common intention was different, either when the property was purchased or later.
-common intention is to be OBJECTIVELY inferred from the conduct of the parties.
-Where the common intention has changed the courts can have regard to fairness.
-Thus it was held that Mr Kernott was only entitled to 10%.
Which case states that the Stack/ Kernott approach to joint legal title cases can be applied to non-sexual living arrangement?
Adekunle v Ritchie [2007]
Whcih case suggests that Stack/Kernott approach only applies to domestic arrangements, not commercial property or property as an investment?
Laskar v Lasker [2008]