- Cited — Lee Hudson v Jayne Hathway 2022-12-14
“…I come now to Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, [2007] 2 AC 432. Ms Dowden and Mr Stack were in a long-term relationship, although they were unmarried. The house in which they lived was in joint names. The question was whet…”
- Applied — Gabriele Volpi & Anor. v Matteo Volpi 2022-04-05
“…ions referred. The modern law “is increasingly unenthusiastic about the presumption, even in relationships where it does apply”: Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, [2007] 2 AC 432 at [117]. Even where the presumption applies, it is a weak presumption as between a father and his adult child, in a case in which the adult child is not finan…”
- Cited — O'Neill v Holland 2020-11-27
“…The landmark decisions of the House of Lords in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, [2007] 2 AC 432 and of the Supreme Court in Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, [2012] 1 AC 776 were primarily concerned with the ascertainment of the beneficial interests of the …”
- Cited — Kahrmann v Harrison-Morgan 2019-11-27
“…es who acquire a property as a home to live in. This line of authority stems from the landmark decision of the House of Lords in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, [2007] 2 AC 432, as subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, [2012] 1 AC 776. It is well established that the principles which the courts…”
- Cited — Kahrmann v Harrison-Morgan 2019-11-27
“…s he had by then become) resiled from his virtual assimilation of constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel in the passage which I have quoted, at 180C: see [2007] 2 AC 432 at [37]. We were also referred by Mr Darton to the decision of this court in Kinane vMackie-Conteh [2005] EWCA Civ 45, [2005] WTLR 345, where a common intentio…”
- Cited — Constandas v Lysandrou & Ors 2018-03-27
“…at the claim was based on a resulting trust said to arise in accordance with the principles established by the House of Lords in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, [2007] 2 AC 432. It was agreed that there was a presumption that the beneficial ownership of a property was the same as the legal ownership. The case turned on whether Mr Cons…”