Hudson v Hathway: Julia Petrenko & Ashpen Rajah discuss a surprising ruling on detrimental reliance
- In Hudson v Hathway, the High Court held that equitable shares in a family home, purchased in joint names, could be varied by a subsequent common intention even in the absence of detrimental reliance or a change of position.
- The case will be of significant interest to property law and family law practitioners alike for its interpretation of the decisions in Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott.
Practitioners will be familiar with the principles on equitable co-ownership and constructive trusts, laid down by the House of Lords in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, [2007] All ER (D) 208 (Apr) and the Supreme Court in Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, [2011] All ER (D) 64 (Nov). The recent decision of the High Court in Hudson v Hathway [2022] EWHC 631 (QB), [2022] All ER (D) 76 (Mar) is important as it determines, for the first time, that detrimental reliance is not always necessary to vary the equitable shares
