On the death of one joint owner the legal title to the shares passes automatically to the remaining joint owner or owners rather than, as with any property held in the sole name of the deceased, into his estate. So assuming it is the husband who has died, then the widow will take the legal title in the shares by survivorship rather than under the terms of the deceased husband’s Will or on his intestacy. Joint owners of shares do not share the same shareholders’ rights as pursuant to section 286 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) more rights are conferred on the first named joint shareholder than on the others. The

On the death of the first spouse Firstly, where a person has made a lifetime gift of an asset and has continued to benefit from the asset, such that section 102 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) would apply, the use of the shorter return of estate information (Form IHT205) is not permitted. In that case, the fuller Form IHT400 must be used instead. In the situation described in the question, the value of the beneficial interest formerly held by the deceased spouse will be treated for inheritance

Pursuant to sections 33–38 of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996), the court may make orders to regulate the occupation of a ‘dwelling-house’. For the purposes of FLA 1996, s 33, which is likely to be the section relied upon by the applicant in the scenario of this Q&A because the applicant and respondent are married, that ‘dwelling-house’ must be, or have been intended to be, the home of the applicant and respondent. FLA 1996, s 63(1) states that a ‘dwelling-house’ includes any building or part of a building which is occupied as a dwelling, as well as ‘any caravan, house-boat or structure which is occupied as a dwelling,

In these circumstances each spouse has a 50% interest in the property, which is held as tenants in common meaning that each spouse’s interest in the property will pass upon their death according to their Will or otherwise the intestacy rules. Therefore each spouse is able to leave their interest in the property to whomever they choose and accordingly a life interest could be left to someone other than their spouse. However, as indicated by the scenario in this Q&A, there is the potential in practice for this to be unworkable. The potential consequences of such a gift

Section 58 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (TCGA 1992) sets out the capital gains tax (CGT) treatment of a transfer between spouses or civil partners who are living together

Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (MFPA 1984) was enacted to ensure insofar as was possible that where a spouse had a connection with England and Wales, any hardship suffered through the application of foreign law on divorce could be ameliorated by enabling that spouse to bring proceedings here. As the Supreme Court put it in Agbaje v Agbaje, the legislative purpose is ‘the alleviation of the adverse consequences of no, or no adequate, financial provision being made by a foreign court where there were substantial connections with England’. The permission (leave) of the court is required before an application under the MFPA 1984 can be made. The court should not grant leave unless there is a ‘substantial ground’ for the making

As a general rule (subject to some exceptions including where stamp duty land tax (SDLT) is charged by reference to market value), for SDLT to apply to a land transaction, there must be chargeable consideration. This is generally consideration

In considering this question, it may be helpful to consider: • what is a job evaluation, and what is its purpose • what transfers under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regs 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246 Job evaluation In order to be eligible to bring an equal pay claim a person must be an employee (or hold personal or public office) and do work that is equal to that of a specified comparator. Under section 65(1) of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), A’s work is equal to that of B if it is: • like B’s work • rated as equivalent to B’s work, or • of equal

Bankruptcy and transactions at undervalue Section 339 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) provides that the trustee of a bankrupt’s estate may apply to the court for an order setting aside a transaction at an undervalue entered into ‘at a relevant time’. The court will make such order as it thinks fit to restore the position that would have pertained but for the transaction. IA 1986, s 339(3) provides that a transaction is at an undervalue if a person makes a gift or otherwise enters into a transaction on terms that provide for them to receive no consideration; enters into a transaction in consideration or marriage; or enters

In this scenario, the tenant's student sponsorship was withdrawn, and the tenant was reported to the Home Office. As a consequence of losing their sponsorship, the tenant no longer had a lawful basis to remain in the UK. The tenant therefore did not move into the property, although they had signed a tenancy agreement and paid a deposit. A tenancy agreement is a contract, and, subject to the doctrine of frustration or other ways in which a contract can be treated as having come to an end, will be enforceable as between the landlord and the tenant. Frustration arises on the occurrence of an event that makes the performance of the contract impossible or significantly different to that which was intended by the parties. The

A third party debt order (TPDO) is a method of enforcement by which a judgment creditor may enforce a debt against money owed to the judgment debtor by a third party who is within the jurisdiction. This includes money held in the judgment debtor's name in a bank or building society or money owed to a self-employed judgment debtor in the course of their trade. The court has discretion as to whether to grant a TPDO

The law regarding payment of judgment debts by third parties is considered in the case of Treasure & Son Limited & Martin Dawes v Treasure & Son Limited. The starting point is that the obligation to pay the judgment is that of the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor may direct a third party to pay the judgment amount on their behalf. In circumstances where the third party is not jointly liable, the judgment debt will only be discharged if payment is made by the third party as an agent for, and on account of, the debtor and with