Tinsley v Milligan
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1992) 63 P&CR 152-178(14)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: CA 30 July 1991. Joint owners of a boarding house separated, the plaintiff (T) leaving. The property was registered in her name only. Relying on the fact that her partner had formerly been involved in DSS housing benefit fraud, and would be unable to depend upon the existance of an illegal arrangement, T claimed possession and gave the defendant (M) notice to quit. M counterclaimed for an order of sale on the grounds that T held the house on trust for both of them. M`s victory at the first instance was repeated in the Court of Appeal, as the defence of minor illegality would be a lesser affront to justice than refusing relief to M who was entitled to a half share of the property.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS46470 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 58435-1001 |
CA 30 July 1991. Joint owners of a boarding house separated, the plaintiff (T) leaving. The property was registered in her name only. Relying on the fact that her partner had formerly been involved in DSS housing benefit fraud, and would be unable to depend upon the existance of an illegal arrangement, T claimed possession and gave the defendant (M) notice to quit. M counterclaimed for an order of sale on the grounds that T held the house on trust for both of them. M`s victory at the first instance was repeated in the Court of Appeal, as the defence of minor illegality would be a lesser affront to justice than refusing relief to M who was entitled to a half share of the property.