Intention of joint benefit
Language: English Series: Financial Times ; 4/4/90 p20Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset and another HL 29 March 1990. The House of Lords allowed an appeal by the bank claiming possession of property held in the name of the defendant`s husband as the wife, although able to prove occupation at the time of transfer giving her an interest under Land Registration Act 1925 s70(1)(g) , was unable to prove intention between the husband and herself that he held the house for their joint benefit.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News article | London News article | WB2614-37 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 29423-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: News article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| WB2614-34 Multi use parks threatened | WB2614-35 Service of notice | WB2614-36 Estate agents` charges | WB2614-37 Intention of joint benefit | WB2614-38 Repossession allowed | WB2614-39 Non-domestic rates for caravans | WB2614-40 Poll tax hits builders |
Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset and another HL 29 March 1990. The House of Lords allowed an appeal by the bank claiming possession of property held in the name of the defendant`s husband as the wife, although able to prove occupation at the time of transfer giving her an interest under Land Registration Act 1925 s70(1)(g) , was unable to prove intention between the husband and herself that he held the house for their joint benefit.