DMS
Chambers

TLATA & CHANCERY CLAIMS

A significant part of Duncan’s practice concerns chancery disputes between unmarried former-cohabitant couples (‘cohabitation disputes’) including under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (‘TLATA’) as well as applications for financial provision for children under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989. Often the two strands under TLATA and Sch. 1 must be advised on together.

Duncan is instructed by experienced civil practitioners as well family lawyers for whom TLATA claims are not their comfort zone. Duncan is adept at guiding those nervous about undertaking TLATA claims through the processes and procedures as well as the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. Duncan has provided many talks, training events and seminars to solicitors on TLATA and chancery claims and is always happy to do so.

Duncan’s chancery practice is not limited just to TLATA claims but all claims that may arise between unmarried former cohabitants on the breakdown of their relationship.

Whilst the possible examples are numerous, some examples of Duncan’s cases have involved:

• M v L: application for summary judgment and/or strike out of the claimant’s claim arising from the assertion the claimant disposed of her interest pursuant to s.53 Law of Property Act 1925 and Hudson v Hathway [2022] EWCA Civ 1648. Application listed for July 2025.

• Case: interlinked chancery and Sch. 1 matter, with the chancery dispute arising from a multi-million-pound property, allegations of >£1m in cash being held on trust, claims of restitution, rescission and illegality, and with the client resident outside of the jurisdiction.

• H v R: a complex proprietary estoppel dispute arising from the ending of a very long relationship including in which property (residential and commercial) and multi-million-pound business interests were said to be held on trust for both parties.

• Case: interlinked chancery, TLATA and Sch. 1 dispute including where one party alleged the other had transferred shares in a family business out of their name into the name of an adult child. The one party’s wealth estimated at c.£10m – £20m. At a pFDR negotiated outright transfer of the family home (without reversion).

• B v M: setting aside on appeal a court’s order made on an application under the Housing Act 1988 for vacant possession of a property held by a party in his sole name but at which the court unilaterally determined the beneficial interests in a property and purported to transfer the property to the occupant non-legal owner.

• K v R: resolving a claim issued under the Married Women’s Property Act 1882 but also addressing TLATA, interest in possession trusts, estoppel, and equitable rights to occupy arising from: (i) a dispute as to one party’s having a life interest in/right to occupy a property; (ii) the beneficial interest in a second property, (iii) ownership of a vehicle, and (iv) entitlement to substantial sums held in a bank account.

• Case: advising on applications that may be made concerning more than one property under the Married Women’s Property Act 1882, TLATA, and the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970.

• Case: advising on rescinding a signed Declaration of Trust where the signature on it was disputed/alleged to be fraudulent.

• Multiple cases where orders for sale and equitable accounting were sought in the face of total opposition or non-cooperation and non-engagement with the court process by the other party.

Unless agreed in writing otherwise, all bookings are accepted pursuant to the:

‘Standard Contractual Terms For The Supply Of Legal Services By Barristers To Authorised Persons’, a copy of which is found here: https://www.barcouncilethics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Contractual-Terms-2020-1.pdf