Advertisement

Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 119–137 | Cite as

Trusting in Trust(s): TheFamily Home and Human Rights

  • Simone Wong
Article

Abstract

In July 2002, the U.K. Law Commission published its Discussion Paper No.287 on home-sharing. The conclusion drawn by the Law Commission was that it would not be possible to devise a statutory scheme for the resolution of family property disputes which is both workable and flexible enough to deal with the wide range of personal relationships that exist. It further took the view that, with appropriate changes to the way in which trusts principles are currently interpreted and applied by the courts, these trusts principles are sufficiently flexible and coherent to deal with the question of ascertaining and quantifying property rights over the family home. The aim of this paper is to examine the implications of these particular conclusions drawn by the Law Commission for both the law of trusts and the resolution of family property disputes between cohabitants. In particular, the paper will consider the extent to which trusts law remains a workable and desirable option and whether any mileage may be gained by drawing on the human rights culture that is emerging in U.K. legal and political discourse.

constructive trusts disputes family property human rights Law Commission Discussion Paper No. 278 (2002) 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Allen, T., “The Human Rights Act (U.K.) and Property Law”, in Property and the Constitution, ed. J. McClean (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1999).Google Scholar
  2. Bottomley, A., “Self and Subjectivities: Languages of Claim in Property Law”, Journal of Law and Society 20 (1993), 56–70.Google Scholar
  3. Brinktrine, R., “The Horizontal Effect of Human Rights in German Constitutional Law: The British Debate on Horizontality and the Possible Role Model of the German Doctrine of 'Mittelbare Drittwirkung Der Grundrechte'”, European Human Rights Law Review 4 (2001), 421–432.Google Scholar
  4. Diduck, A., “Fairness and Justice for All? The House of Lords in White v. White [2000] 2 FLR 981”, Feminist Legal Studies 9/2 (2001), 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eekelaar, J., “A Woman's Place-A Conflict between Law and Social Values”, Conveyancer (1987), 93–102.Google Scholar
  6. Equal Opportunities Commission, Men and Women in Britain: Pay and Income (London: Equal Opportunities Commission, 1999).Google Scholar
  7. Flynn, L. and Lawson, A., “Gender, Sexuality and the Doctrine of Detrimental Reliance”, Legal Studies 3/1 (1995), 105–121.Google Scholar
  8. Gardner, S., “Rethinking Family Property”, Law Quarterly Review 109 (1993), 263–300.Google Scholar
  9. Glover, N. and Todd, P., “The Myth of Common Intention”, Legal Studies 16 (1996), 325–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Halliwell, M., “Equity as Injustice: The Cohabitant's Case”, The Anglo-American Law Review 20 (1991), 550–552.Google Scholar
  11. Harris, D.J., O'Boyle, M. and Warbrick, C., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (London: Butterworths, 1995).Google Scholar
  12. Howell, J., “Land and Human Rights”, Conveyancer 63 (1999), 287–310.Google Scholar
  13. Hunt, M., “The 'Horizontal Effect' of the Human Rights Act”, Public Law (1998), 423–443Google Scholar
  14. Law Commission, Sharing Homes: A Discussion Paper Law Com. No. 278 (2002).Google Scholar
  15. Law Society, Cohabitation: The Case for Clear Law (2002).Google Scholar
  16. Lawson, A., “The Things We Do for Love: Detrimental Reliance in the Family Home”, Legal Studies 16 (1996), 218–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Luba, J., “Residential Possession Proceedings and Article 8: the Impact on the Private Sector”, Landlord and Tenant Rev 6/1 (2002), 9–12.Google Scholar
  18. Monaghan, K., “Limitations and Opportunities: A Review of the Likely Domestic Impact of Article 14 E.C.H.R.”, European Human Rights Law Review 2 (2001), 167–180.Google Scholar
  19. Moon, G., “The Draft Discrimination Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights: A Progress Report”, European Human Rights Law Review 1 (2000), 49–53.Google Scholar
  20. Neave, M., “Living Together-Legal Effects of the Sexual Division of Labour in Four Common Law Countries”, Monash University Law Review 17 (1991), 14–63.Google Scholar
  21. Oliver, D., “The Human Rights Act and Public/Private Law divides”, European Human Rights Law Review 4 (2000), 343–355.Google Scholar
  22. Pahl, J., Money and Marriage (Basingstoke: MacMillan Press, 1989).Google Scholar
  23. Pahl, J., “Household Spending, Personal Spending and the Control of Money in Marriage”, J Br Sociological Assoc 24/1 (1990), 119–138.Google Scholar
  24. Phillipson, G., “The Human Rights Act, 'Horizontal Effect' and the Common Law: A Bang or a Whimper?”, Modern Law Review 62 (1999), 824–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Raphael, T., “The Problem of Horizontal Effect”, European Human Rights Law Review 5 (2000), 493–511.Google Scholar
  26. Rook, D., Property Law and Human Rights (London: Blackstone Press, 2001).Google Scholar
  27. Sandland, R., “Not 'Social Justice': The Housing Association, the Judges, the Tenant and his Lover”, Feminist Legal Studies 8/2 (2000), 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sermet, L., The European Convention on Human Rights and Property Rights, Council of Europe Press, Human Rights Files No. 11 (1992).Google Scholar
  29. van Dijk, P. and van Hoof, G.J.H., Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2nd edn. (Netherlands: Kluwer, 1990).Google Scholar
  30. Vogler, C. and Pahl, J., “Money, Power and Inequality within Marriage”, Sociological Rev 42/2 (1994), 263–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wade, H.W.R., “Horizons of Horizontality”, Law Quarterly Review 116 (2000), 217–224.Google Scholar
  32. Warbrick, C., “The Structure of Article 8”, European Human Rights Law Review 1 (1998), 32–44.Google Scholar
  33. Wong, S., “Constructive Trusts over the Family Home: Lessons to be Learned from other Commonwealth Jurisdictions?”, Legal Studies 18 (1998), 369–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wong, S., “When Trust(s) is Not Enough: An Argument for the Use of Unjust Enrichment for Home-Sharers”, Feminist Legal Studies 7/1 (1999), 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wong, S., “Property Rights for Home-Sharers: Equity versus a Legislative Framework?” in Feminist Perspectives on Equity and Trusts, eds. S. Scott-Hunt and H. Lim (London: Cavendish, 2001).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simone Wong
    • 1
  1. 1.Kent Law School, Eliot CollegeUniversity of KentCanterbury

Personalised recommendations