Property Law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Property Law - Case Study Example After the relationship broke down, Ms Oxley claimed that the proceeds of sale of this property should be distributed in equal shares. She argued that as there was no discussion on the financial issues, although she had inferred that the sales proceedings would be equally shared for beneficial ownership. Mr Hiscock appealed that there has been no discussion on intended shares so Ms Oxley's presumption should be displaced. This case shows the extent to which cohabitation could be considered as a condition for equally distributed shares in property being considerably important within property law and analysis of equity and trusts. Trust law falls under the broader topic of property law and family law and relates to wills, trusts and property that are shared or distributed. The importance of this case of Oxley v Hiscock lies in the fact that it shows the limitations applicable in distribution of property or shares even in case of cohabitation or marriage. The case and its judgement provi de insights into the nature of family law particularly in relation to trusts and property share. The proceedings were brought to the court under section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. The appeal and the judgement highlight the question of how 'proceeds of property in which an unmarried couple have been living as man and wife should be shared between them when the relationship comes to an end'2. The 3. Facts of the Case The facts of the case could be summarised as follows: Mr Hiscock, the appellant purchased a property at 35 Dickens Close, Hartly, Kent in April 1991 under his name. Mrs. Oxley formerly occupied a house at Dartford as a secure tenant but by September 1987 exercised her rights under Part V of the Housing Act 1985 to acquire this property with a discount of 20,000 she could buy the property for 25,200. At the end of 1990, Mr Hiscock purchased his home in 35 Dickens Close for himself, Mrs Oxley and her children from a previous marriage for a purchase price of 127,000 which was funded by a building society advance, proceeds from sale of 39 Page Close and balance of Mr Hiscock's own savings. Thus some amount of money 61,500 has been obtained from the sale of 39 Page Close the property acquired by Mrs Oxley who was a secure tenant in local authority housing. The property at 39 Page Close was documented as being bought with assistance of funds from Mr Hiscock and purchased under the sole nam e of Mrs Oxley3. Thus Mr Hiscock was definitely associated with interests in the property but although the property 39 Page Close could have been transferred to joint names after a three year period, this was not done and remained in Mrs Oxley's name. After the sale of the property at Page Close for which Mr Hiscock claimed nothing, Mr Hiscock contributed 25,200 to the purchase of 35 Dickens Close and Mrs Oxley contributed the balance, 36,300. Following sale of 35 Dickens Close in 10 years, the proceedings began with the claim that under section 14 of the 1996 Act, there is a declaration that the proceeds of sale of 35 Dickens Road were to be held by Mr Hiscock upon trust for himself and Mrs Oxley, in equal shares; alternatively, in such shares as the court should determine. The judgement was given in favour of Mrs Oxley and Mr Hiscock appealed against the decision. 4. The Issues of the Case (Consequences of the Law) The