Добавил:
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
учебный год 2023 / (Law in Context) Alison Clarke, Paul Kohler-Property Law_ Commentary and Materials (Law in Context)-Cambridge University Press (2006).pdf
Скачиваний:
2
Добавлен:
21.02.2023
Размер:
3.84 Mб
Скачать

Co-ownership 595

co-owned chattel may make an application to the court for an order of division. However, in Australia at least, according to Re Gillie, ex parte Cornell (1996) 70 PCR 254, a co-owner (of any proportion) is lawfully entitled to unilaterally take his share of co-owned personalty providing this can be done without destroying the character or identity of the property which must consequently be physically severable, forming a common bulk of homogeneous quality.

Notes and Questions 16.5

Consider the following notes and questions both before and after reading Re Gillie, ex parte Cornell (1996) 70 PCR 254, Spence v. Union Marine Insurance (1868) LR 3 CP 427 and Dennis v. Dennis (1971) 45 ALJR 605, either in full or as extracted at www.cambridge.org/propertylaw/.

1Should the rules governing the resolution of disputes between co-owners of chattels also apply to disputes between co-owners of land?

2In Re Gillie, why was one co-owner held to have excluded the other when she only appropriated half of the herd?

3What role (if any) would there be for section 188 of the Law of Property Act 1925 if Re Gillie was applied in this jurisdiction?

4Is the judgment a sensible and practical solution or one that will promote selfhelp and conflict? What should the attitude of the courts be to extra-judicial means of settling co-ownership disputes?

5Why might it be argued that the approach advocated in Re Gillie creates more problems than it solves? Do you think adoption of the judgment in

England and Wales would reduce or increase the likelihood of such cases being litigated?

6In Dennis v. Dennis (1971) 45 ALJR 605, a dispute arose as to the ownership of a racehorse and whether or not (in an echo of a similar dispute that recently arose between the manager of Manchester United and two shareholders

in the club) one party had acquired a proprietary or personal interest. Why are such disputes particularly likely to arise in the context of personal property?

7What is the difference between owning one-half of a horse and being entitled to one-half of the net winnings and one-half of the sale price?

8In Spence, why did the court decide it was a tenancy in common and not a joint tenancy?