Hammond v Mitchell (1991) 1 WLR 1127
In this case Vicky Mitchell who had not contributed to the purchase price of the property was granted a half share due to her reliance on several statements made by her partner Mr.Hammond: "I'll have to put the house in my name because I have tax problems due to the fact that my wife burnt all my account books and my caravan was burnt down with all the records of my car sales in it. The tax man would be interested, and if I could prove my money had gone back into a property I'd be safeguarded." He also stated: "Don't worry about the future because when we are married it will be half yours anyway and I'll always look after you and the boy."
Waite J (pg 11) said: 'Had they been married, the issue of ownership would scarcely have been relevant, because the law when dealing with the financial consequences of divorce adopts a forward-looking perspective in which questions of ownership yield to the higher demands of relating the means of both, to the needs of each, the first consideration given to the welfare of children. Since this couple did not marry, none of that flexibility is available to them, except a limited power to direct capital provision for their children.'
Vicky Mitchell obtained a half share under the first category in Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset, having contributed nothing at all to the house itself and solely because of statements that had been made to her by Mr. Hammond.
This study area has been created by our experts to help students with Administrative Law Essay and Problem Questions. If you require further help with your question, why not order a fully customised model answer on which to base your assignment? Use our online order form to submit your request and you could have a complete model answer written to your specification within 24 hours.
