Chattels: I have bought it all for you

Outlines the ways by which personal property can be acquired through the gift of chattels, referring to case law including the Court of Appeal rulings in Re Cole (A Bankrupt) and Re Kirkland, and through the declaration of trust, with reference to the Chancery Division ruling in Rowe v Prance. Compares this to the use of constructive trusts or proprietary estoppel to secure assets and considers the need to prove detrimental reliance.

Giving credit where it's due

Discusses the entitlement to occupation rent where one party to a relationship no longer lives in the matrimonial or family home in which he/she has an interest and a right of occupation. Describes the case law illustrating that forceful exclusion of the non-occupying party is not a prerequisite to entitlement to an occupation rent. Considers the calculation of the parties' respective credits where the occupying party has made mortgage repayments since the separation and the other is entitled to an occupation rent.

Joint ownership and beneficial entitlement: Stack v Dowden.

Explores the issue of the share of beneficial entitlement to the family home where the legal title is jointly owned, but where there has not been an express declaration of a beneficial joint tenancy. Discusses the House of Lords judgment in Stack v Dowden which addressed this point. Explains how the judges moved the focus away from the court imposing its own sense of fairness on the parties or imputing an intention based on the circumstances to one where the concentration will be on the parties' relevant conduct. Outlines three other points of interest referred to in the judgment: (1) whether an indirect financial contribution could support a constructive trust; (2) whether proprietary estoppel and common intention constructive trusts should be assimilated; and (3) whether a mortgage liability is equivalent to a financial contribution.

Resulting trusts, joint borrowers and beneficial share

Reviews case law illustrating the courts' approach to beneficial ownership of property purchased in joint name by means of a joint mortgage but without any declaration of beneficial interest, the resulting trust and joint beneficial interest presumptions. Contrast the approach adopted in cases where one party made no contribution to the mortgage payments with those where both parties made a contribution. Highlights the courts' treatment of the right to buy discount afforded tenant purchasers and property purchased as a commercial venture rather than a home.

A just claim?

Discusses the law relating to the payment of occupation rent to a co-owner by the party remaining in the property after a relationship breakdown both under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and where the Act is not applicable. Considers, with reference to the Chancery Division decision in Re Barcham, whether a trustee in bankruptcy acting on behalf of the non-occupying person can claim an occupation rent under the court's equitable jurisdiction.

Undue influence: back door tactics?

Implications of CA decision on whether it was abuse of process for bank to pursue remedy against mortgagor by suing on personal covenant which could result in bankruptcy following successful defence of possession proceedings by wife. [From Legal Journals Index]

Parental Responsibility and the Duty to Consult - the public's view

This article considers the imposition, by the courts, of a parental duty to consult on matters of importance in a child’s life. The results of a survey of 2,300 respondents, who were asked to respond to a number of scenarios, are analysed and discussed. The survey provides some interesting reflections on the views of the general public as to who should be ‘in control’ over decision making for children.

Fairness in Ancillary Relief

This article stems from setting student projects. It describes in detail the outcome of a project designed to ascertain the views of the public in relation to ancillary relief and what they consider to be a 'fair' outcome. The rationale for undertaking student projects has been discussed at length in another article and is therefore only alluded to here. The discussion centres around the law, findings and outcome of the project. Students studying the Family Law course at Sheffield University were required to survey members of the public in order to gather their views on the division of assets on divorce and then to analyse the public's response in light of the seminal decision of the House of Lords in White v White [2001] 1 AC 596.

‘Stakeholders’ views of legal and advice services for people admitted to psychiatric hospital’

This paper describes a study that used a mixed method approach to elicit the views of a range of stakeholders about experiences of compulsory admission to psychiatric hospital, and the use of the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT). The paper begins with an introduction to the background of the study, one that took place in Northern Ireland, a region in the UK with its own mental health legislation and policy. A review of literature is then presented. This highlights some of the disadvantages that service users and carers face when dealing with professionals during and following compulsory admission to hospital. This section concludes with an overview of literature on the MHRT in the UK. A range of methods was used to gather data from the following stakeholders: five service user and carer focus group interviews (n = 44); interviews with four lawyers experienced in Tribunal work; an interview with a legal member of the Tribunal; a survey of solicitors who identified themselves as equipped to carry out Tribunal work; interviews with three managers of organisations that provided patient advocacy services; letters to hospital managers requesting information provided to patients and carers. The findings reveal a number of themes associated with these experiences of compulsory admission to hospital and subsequent use of the Tribunal. Service users and carers generally found it difficult to access relevant information about rights, information provided by hospital managers was uneven and lawyers were often not familiar with processes associated with compulsory admission. There was a range of views about the Tribunal. Most respondents felt that the Tribunal was necessary and mostly satisfactory in the way it carried out its functions, but stakeholders raised a number of issues. Carers in particular felt that they should be more involved in decision-making processes, whereas lawyers tended to be focused on more technical, legal issues. Problems of regrading prior to the Tribunal and in examining medical evidence were highlighted by lawyers. There was an appeal for better information and advice by service users and carers, and recognition of the need for better training and education for lawyers. The paper concludes with a brief discussion about current mental health law in the UK, arguing that, in this context, professionals should more proactively use information and advice that can enable service users and carers to defend their rights. Keywords: compulsory mental health; law; legal and advice services