Call us: Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm, Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm
Call local rate 0330 056 3171
Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm | Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm
Call local rate 0330 056 3171
Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm | Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm

High Court transfers property dispute between ex-partners

The Queen’s Bench division of the High Court has transferred a property dispute between a couple who fell out after moving in together to an alternative court.

In Morris v Donaldson, the couple  had both been married before. In 2009 they began a relationship and moved into a house owned by the woman in Putney, south London. Each party had children and they either lived with the couple or visited them at the property.

The couple planned to marry but the relationship broke down before the wedding. The woman then asked her former partner to move out of the house and he did so.

The man then launched proceedings in the Queen’s Bench division. He sought, under section 25.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an order that he be allowed to enter his former partner’s house to list his possessions and then to remove them.

In the High Court, Judge Seymour QC noted:

“The property contains items which [the couple] have accumulated over many years in the course of their previous marriages, and also items, as I understand it, which they have purchased together.”

He added:

“It is, I think, appropriate to notice that what is being sought in the Draft Order which has been put before me, first, is delivery up of identified items of property; second, what is then envisaged is that … the claimant, should be permitted to enter the property — which legally at any rate is that of the defendant… with a view to him identifying what he says are items of his property and what he says are items of joint property…And in the event of there being disputes which the parties are not able to resolve between themselves that the matter be brought back to this court with a view to a resolution by this court of whatever disputes there may be.”

The defendant offered to make items available via a delivery man within a limited time and the judge noted her offer.

But, he continued:

“It is, I think, immediately obvious that whatever else is appropriate, it is not that this court should resolve any issues between these parties. If and in so far as there is a question as to the ownership of an item, the appropriate division of this court, if it were appropriate indeed for this action to remain in the High Court, would probably be Chancery Division or possibly Family Division, but assuredly not this division.”

Judge Seymour concluded:

“In those circumstances, it seems to me that the appropriate way forward is for me to accept the undertakings offered by [the defendant], but to make no other order, save that this action be transferred either to the Wandsworth County Court or to the Family Division.”

The blog team at Stowe is a group of writers based across our family law offices who share their advice on the wellbeing and emotional aspects of divorce or separation from personal experience. As well as pieces from our family law solicitors, guest contributors also regularly contribute to share their knowledge.

Contact us

As the UK's largest family law firm we understand that every case is personal.

Leave a comment

Help & advice categories


Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up for advice on divorce and relationships from our lawyers, divorce coaches and relationship experts.

What type of information are you looking for?

Privacy Policy