Implied transfers of beneficial ownership of land
Series: Farm Tax Brief ; August/September 2003, 3(1)Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Summary: Examines the case "Hyett v Stanley and others" ([2003] EWCA Civ 942, LTL 20/6/2003) which illustrates the transfer of land from landowner to another party by means other than a formal instrument of transfer. The owner of a farm had been divorced but entered into a longterm relationship with the appellant (H). After the owner's death, H claimed a beneficial half share in the property which was contested by the deceased's family who benefited under his will. H's claim was initially rejected but CA applied the principle laid down in "Gissing v Gissing" (CA, [1971] AC 866) and held that as H had carried out a legal charge with regards financial matters for the owner, she was entitled to an immediate and absolute beneficial interest.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS67103 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 123716-1001 |
Examines the case "Hyett v Stanley and others" ([2003] EWCA Civ 942, LTL 20/6/2003) which illustrates the transfer of land from landowner to another party by means other than a formal instrument of transfer. The owner of a farm had been divorced but entered into a longterm relationship with the appellant (H). After the owner's death, H claimed a beneficial half share in the property which was contested by the deceased's family who benefited under his will. H's claim was initially rejected but CA applied the principle laid down in "Gissing v Gissing" (CA, [1971] AC 866) and held that as H had carried out a legal charge with regards financial matters for the owner, she was entitled to an immediate and absolute beneficial interest.