Studying The Functions Of The Bank Of England Finance Essay

Studying The Functions Of The Bank Of England Finance Essay Introduction The Bank of England also known as the central Bank of England. In 1964 it started as the joint stock company, and in return for a large loan to the government was put in privileged position which enabled it to be a largest private bank. It was then authorized to hold the large gold reserves of the banking system of UK. In 1844 note issuing powers were terminated other than via bank, which become as the monopoly supplier. Before coming as the bank of England Act 1946, it was under the control of the treasury. It is managed by the Court of Directors, headed by the governor, who is appointed by the crown. Since 1844, the balance sheet of the bank was divided into two halves, namely as: Issue Department (concerned with the notes issuance). Banking Department (concerned with other banking). Functions of Bank of England Bank of England Act in 1946 defines the constitutional relationship between bank and the government as follows: The treasury of the bank of England can give the instruction to the bank time by time as, after constitution with the governor of the bank, they think necessary in the public interest. The Act makes no specific reference to the banks responsibilities and duties because they were considered to be well established by the customs and practices. Overall, the Bank of England performs the following: BoE is responsible for the issuance of notes and coins, BoE acts as banker to the central government, BoE acts as banker in the banking sector, BoE manages the Exchange Equalization Account, BoE is conscientious for the precise timing of interest rate changes, BoE as well supervises the banking sector. As per the Governor of the Bank of England, Mr. George in 1996, three major purposes are: Maintaining the honor and value of currency; Maintaining the stability of financial system, both internal and external, Ensuring the effectiveness of the UKs financial services. Role of Bank of England in oversight of Core UK Payment Systems Introduction Basically, Payment system is playing a major role in the development of the economic and financial infrastructure. One of key functions of the UK payment system is to allow transactions to be completed securely and well in time, makes a good involvement to overall financial development. It is essential to be considering that payment systems can also involve risks for members, and can be a gateway for the transmission of disorder from economy or financial system to another. Therefore central bank has always taking steps to develop and operate the Payment system to control this systemic risk. The Banks lapse of payment systems is a major part of its responsibilities for Financial and monetary solidity. The basic function, the Banks lapse work is to identify risks posed by the defining, developing and operate of payment systems and to take necessary steps to control them. A payment system is a system that allows its users to transfer money, it varies from country to country and location to location. In this modern era, in most developed countries, monetary system is regarded as cash ie notes and coins issued by the central bank and can be claims against credit institutions in the form of deposits. Payment system is a safe way to complete a transaction safely and well in time. Companies can use them when they want to buy or sell goods and services and individuals depend on them to receive their wages and for purchases; and Government depends on them to receive taxes and other benefits. Through a payment system a customer can make payment to the customer of other banks. These interconnections mean that, that a customer who hold the money with a bank can focus on their balances, cost and quality of the services and others like credit standings with their banks. The volume of the UK payments system has been considerably increased from the last few years. As for as the payment system concern for the efficiency and effectiveness of the UKs financial sector both domestically, for the stabilization the UK economy, and internationally, to invest in the UK business and financial markets. Working with financial market participants, the Bank plays a vital role to develop and improve the UK payment system so that the investors can enjoy the benefits. The Bank seeks to support market-led development but take a more active part in catalyzing market initiatives the operational role. Bank of England oversight Role for payments That is the major responsibility of the bank to oversight the payment system and as well the stability of the financial system. As the values of payment systems have increased, but at the same time theres an increase in the risk management have become an important issue. The Banks oversight role relates to its operational role as the provider of the central bank money to some of the payment systems and as final provider of liquidity to the banking system and to the stability of the economy more widely. The Bank: The bank of England is entirely responsible for the settlement of CHAPS sterling and CHAPS Euro. The bank of England is responsible to provide the intra day liquidity of CHAPS Sterling and CHAPS Euro by way of reserves against their securities. The main function of the bank of England is to oversee the payment system and to ensure that sufficient weight has given to risk reduction and management and to view their development and operation. However, the BoE taking an interest in promoting payment systems, proper lapse of the competitive upbringing for systems, their members and their users is a subject for the competition authorities. b) Major Developments in UK Payment System in 2008 In the year 2008 theres many changes in the UK payment system because in this year  £200 trillion were passed. The UK Payment system development and performance can be assessed by the systematic payment Core Principles. Through these core principles in 2008 theres main payment system development in UK. CLC and SWIFT are two international infrastructures in the faster payment services and development. To assess the performance and flexibility of the payment system Core principles were developed. These differentiate between the systems and the risk related to their operations and as well the basic tools developed by the bank to avoid these risks. For this purpose bank has developed Oversight Risk Framework. In the year 2008, most important risks to the systems relate to the settlement risks in the event that a member becomes bankrupt, and as well to the operational risks of failure of a system or its supporting network. Overall, the most significant risks identified by the support relate to the main wholesale payment systems. This reflects the blow of Out ages of these systems for economic and financial activity in the United Kingdom. CHAPS One of the most important Payment System in UK is known as CHAPS that provides real time gross settlement of transfers between members which eliminates credit risk. Since, the CHAPS Euro closed in 2008; it is now consist of CHAPS Sterling. The relationship between the Bank and CHAPS Clearing Company is governed by the Memorundam thats known as Memorundam of Understanding. In the year 2008, daily value of CHAPS Sterling was around  £280 billion, thats make it largest UK Payment system. CHPAS played a vital role in distributing the liquidity and mitigation of risks within CHAPS and its real time gross settlement infrastructure in UK financial system During 2008, CHAPS volume fell while values remained constant. There are two reasons for the reduction in volume: Down turn in economic activity may caused fewer CHAPS payments to be made, such as those associated with the housing transaction. Smaller payments could be migrating to the faster payment services which launched in May 2008. There were more signs that volume falling more rapidly in the second half of 2008. In this real time world the largest gross settlement system is the CHAPS sterling which is as well used by the banks to move money around the fiscal system through the following ways: Payments from one Business to other Business. Payment made through the Solicitor for the purchase of house to other party or bank By the individuals who are selling the high value items. Such as car which require guaranteed payments. CREST CREST is as well one of the best Payment System that provides a payment settlement service for gold, shares, and money market technique in both sterling. CREST supervised by the Financial Service Authority (FSA), and the BoE responsible for its oversight. It is a totally owned firm of Euro clear SA/NV and is an RTGS system. As stated in 2009 BoE report, the average daily value of transactions in the sterling element of the system was  £478 billion per day in 2008, and its daily volume reached 211,559. Three types of payments can be made through CREST: Real-time gross settlement in central bank money in sterling. RTGS in central bank money in euro A mutual net settlement arrangement for transactions in US dollars. Bacs As in the change in the technology it changes all the ways of living and work styles, in the same way it changes the payments methods. So, people are choosing automated methods of payment as compare to paper based like cheques and drafts. In 2008 a record of 4.8 billion automated payments in UK has been noted. 92 % of automated payments are bulk transactions generated by the small and large business organisations and are: Direct debits mainly to pay utility bills, life and general insurance premiums and various subscriptions; Direct credits, used for salary payments, pensions, annuities and child benefit. The remaining 8% is made up of inter-bank telephone and online banking payments and standing order payments. Standing Orders Basically, a standing order is an instruction an account holder give to bank or building society to make payments, usually on a regular basis, to a UK bank or building society account. Any person or company with a current account at a bank or building society in the UK can set up a standing order. Your bank or building society will, on the day specified, debit your account and transfer the money to the bank or building society account of the recipient. The money will be transferred either through The Bacs system or increasingly from June 2008 through. The Faster Payments Service.   If it goes via Bacs it will arrive with the recipient within three working days, e.g. for a standing order initiated on a Monday, the earliest it could arrive would be the Wednesday. However, standing orders processed via Faster Payments will be processed on the same day. Internet and Phone In the last few years theres a huge increase in the internet and phone banking that rise the automated payment. The 22.5 million customer are registered with online facility and more than half using internet for making payments, and 40% people from other half (12.3 million) people using telephone banking to make payments. Internet and phone banking transactions are processed as Faster Payments or as one-off Credit using the same three day Bacs system and so followed the three day timescales developed for bulk payments (Direct Debits and Direct Credits). Cheques Cheques are the written orders by the account holders instructing their banks to pay the specified amount to the named person. Cheques are not legal tenders but they are legal documents and their use is governed by the Bills of Exchange Act 1982, and the cheques Act 1957 and 1992. Bankers drafts Bankers drafts are cheques drawn directly on the account of a bank rather than the account of a customer. They provide added assurance as the bankers drafts are unlikely to be returned unpaid due to lack of funds. However, it is important to note that they do not provide a guarantee against fraudulent use. For example, they may be lost or stolen and then used fraudulently. Daily Averages in 2008 Volumes, value and payment types (daily average) Payment Systems Volumes Values ( £ millions) Important Payment Types Substitute CHAPS 136196 283745 1. Settlement in Financial Market Settlement. 2. CLS pay ins and pay outs. 3. House Purchases 1. CHAPS sterling bypass mode 2. Manual procedure for making small number of Bank Transmission. Bacs 22266734 15537 1. Salary and Benefit Payments. 2. Bill payment by direct debit. 3. Telephone and internet banking. 1. Perhaps minimum scope for switching to other instruments in the short term e.g. Cheques, Cash. Faster Payment Services 939866 310 1. Telephone and internet banking. 2. Single immediate payment. 3. Forward dated payments. 4. Standing order payments. 1. Bacs 2. Cash 3. Card Network. Visa ( Credit and Debit Card) 14997260 836 1. Payments for goods and services by consumers and business. 1. Cheques 2. Other Networks 3. Cash Master Cards(Credit and Debit Cards) 10742466 593 1. Payments for goods and services by consumers and business. 1. Cheques 2. Other Networks 3. Cash Link 7797260 306 1. Withdrawal of cash using an ATM not operated by customer own bank. 1. Own bank ATM 2. Other cash withdrawal channels CREST 211559 477512 1. Settlement in respect of cash margin payments. 2. Payments for commodity deliveries. 3. Cash settlement If disruption does not prevent calculation of settlement obligation, contingency payments, procedure may be invoked. D). Core Principles The Bank has adopted some principles, among of these principles few provided a basis for the Banks non statutory oversight up to now and the few other principles related to the UK Payment system. All these principles were adopted by the bank for consultation during 28th September and 30th October. These principles are: Principle 1 The Payment System must have well legal basis under the relevant jurisdictions. The Bank of England notes in 2009 that this is one of the well suited principle for CHAPS as well in 2003 International Monetary Fund observes thats the best principle for CHAPS. In a financial report by International Monetary Fund it is also noted that Bank of England and Wales govern the CHAPS rules, and the Courts of England and Wales also exercise exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes in connection with these rules. The system designed under the rules of Financial Market Regulation in 1999 that was implement the European Union settlement and was finally implemented in United Kingdom. Principle 2 The systems rules and procedures should enable participants to have a clear understanding of the systems impact on each of the financial risks they incur through participation in it. As per the Bank of England report in 2009, CHAPS observes this principle. In 2003 International Monetary Fund draw a conclusion that CHAPS rule set out high level rights and duties of the members, membership criteria and operational criteria. The report issued by Bank of England in 2009 self assessment mentions a Memorandum of Understanding that sets out the rights and responsibilities of the Bank of England as operator and settlement agent of CHAPS; CHAPCo, as the member of the system and the payment organization. CHAPS rule contain the detail procedures and operational manuals that cover all the aspects of the payment system. Principle 3 The system should have clearly defined procedures for the management of credit risks and liquidity risks, which specify the respective responsibilities of the system operator and the participants and which provide appropriate incentives to manage and contain those risks. In 2009 Bank of England declares that CHAPS observes this principle. In 2007 report CHAPS declares as RTGS system, settlement process does not involve credit risk as is the case in deferred settlement system. It adds that domestic payments are both irrecoverable and finally at the point where relevant members settlement account is debited. If a paying bank has insufficient funds available on its settlement account with the Bank of England, CHAPS payments cannot be made, and a liquidity crunch in the system could result in a gridlock. The BoE nevertheless notes that CHAPS members do not experience liquidity management difficulties in meeting CLS pay-in deadlines. Principle 4 The system should provide prompt final settlement on the day of value, preferably during the day and at a minimum at the end of the day. (Systems should seek to exceed the minima included in this Core Principle.) In 2009 Bank of England self assessment that CHAPS operates on RTGS basis, minimizing the credit risk and thus observes this principle. In 2003 a report by International Monetary Fund assessment also assessed CHAPS as observing this principle. Principle 5 A system in which multilateral netting takes place should, at a minimum, be capable of ensuring the timely completion of daily settlements in the event of an inability to settle by the participant with the largest single settlement obligation. (Systems should seek to exceed the minima included in this Core Principle.) This principle is not applicable to CHAPS, according to both the IMF 2003 and BoE 2009 reports, since it is a RTGS system. Principle 6 The system should ensure a high degree of security and operational reliability and should have contingency arrangements for timely completion of daily processing. According to Bank of England and International Monetary Fund assessment, CHAPS observe this principle because CHAPS security architecture was founded on the range of policies and procedures governing the security demanded by the Bank of England, SWIFT and as well for the CHAPS members. In 2009 it was declared by BoE that CHAPS security controls and measures effective, and the business continuity, recovery procedures extensive. The BoE encourages the CHAPCo and its members to continue the system arrangements, communication among the members and to improve the operational arrangements to tide over a crisis. Principle 7 The system should provide a means of making payments which is practical for its users and efficient for the economy. According to both, BoE report in 2009 and IMF report in 2003 assessment, CHAPS observes this principle. As Per the 2003 IMF report, the CHAPS security architecture was founded on a range of policies and procedures manuals governing the levels of security demanded of the system operator (the BoE), (SWIFT) and the CHAPS members. The BoE, in its 2009 report, also finds the CHAPS security controls and measures effective, and the business continuity and recovery procedures extensive. The report mentions the Tripartite Resilience Benchmarking Project (TRBP) that underscores the high quality of the system. Principle 8 The system should have objective and publicly disclosed criteria for participation, which permit fair and open access. In 2003 IMF indicate in a report that CHAPS complies with this principle and as per BoE assessment in payment system report that in the country notes CHAPS only broadly observe this principle. This lower rating was assigned by the BoE primarily because of the fee charged for new membership is  £70,000 which BoE deems as inappropriate. Principle 9 The systems governance arrangements should be effective, accountable and transparent. In 2009 BoE and in 2003 IMF assessment indicates that CHAPS observe this principle. As per BoE, CHAPCo has clear governance structure with board having ultimate responsibilities for the management of the system. Further in 2007 the payment council introduced new governance arrangement for UK payment system. Under this CHAPCo is contractually bound to follow the directions of council on issue like integrity and innovation. Principle 10 The central bank should define clearly its payment system objectives and should disclose publicly its role and major policies with respect to systemically important payment systems. In 2003 in IMF report, BoE observe this principle. As noted by the IMF, the BoE published a paper on Oversight of Payment Systems in November 2000, explaining its objectives in regard to the oversight of UK payment systems. BoE had not yet published any follow-up/annual account of its oversight activities. However, in the June 2002 Financial Stability Review (FSR), a useful box was included to give some more detail of BoE oversight. In 2005 report, the BoE states that payment systems in the UK are not subject to statutory oversight, but notes that in its 2005 report, the BoE states that in order to ensure financial stability, the BoE especially focuses on the reliable functioning of systemically important payment systems in the country. Principle 11 The central bank should ensure that the systems it operates comply with the Core Principles. According to the 2003 FSAP conducted by the IMF, the BoE observes this principle. The IMF adds that the BoE had, together with CHAPCo and CRESTCo, (company operating the UK securities settlement system CREST and the settlement system for money market instruments, now merged with Euro clear, the European Securities Settlement Agency) developed the RTGS Central System, which it operates and provides to these companies as well as to other settlement systems with net end-of-day settlement. Principle 12 The central bank should oversee compliance with the Core Principles by systems it does not operate and it should have the ability to carry out this oversight. According to the 2003 FSAP conducted by the IMF, the BoE observes this principle. As observed by the IMF, the BoE formalized its oversight of UK payment systems with the creation of an Oversight Team in the Market Infrastructure Division with express responsibility for the oversight of payments systems. The BoE also assesses the key UK systems against the core principles. Principle 13 The central bank, in promoting payment system safety and efficiency through the Core Principles, should cooperate with other central banks and with any other relevant domestic or foreign authorities. According to the 2003 FSAP conducted by the IMF, the BoE observes this principle. The IMF notes that the BoE has close and frequent contact with its European and Group of Ten (G10) counterparts, both through formal mechanisms in particular G10, European System of Central Banks (ESCB), and EU committees and ad hoc contacts. The BoE also has close contacts with other U.K. authorities, especially through the Tripartite Standing Committee in which senior representatives of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Governor of the BoE and the Chairman of the FSA meet monthly to discuss financial stability; and the U.K. Competition Authorities. The BoE has also signed the Memorandum of Understanding between Payment Systems Overseers and Banking Supervisors in Stage Three of Economic and Monetary Union aimed at promoting cooperation and information sharing between EU payment systems and banking supervisors in relation to large-value interbank transfer systems, in order to ensure the soundness and stability of financial systems and their participating credit institutions. As the BoE website adds, the BoE collaborates with domestic (FSA) and international regulators to provide collective oversight of systems such as Euro clear, Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), LCH. Responsibilities of the central bank in applying the Core Principles The central Bank should consider the following: The central bank should define the clear objectives of the payment system and as well should relate its publicity role with respect to the importance of payment system. The Central Bank should ensure that the all system operates in accordance with the Core Principles. The central bank should supervise acquiescence with the Core Principles by the systems it does not operate and it should have the ability to carry out this oversight. The central Bank should cooperate with the other central banks of the domestic and foreign for the safety and efficiency of the Payment System through the Core Principles. The Bank of England (BoE) asserts that as the overseer of the payment systems in the United Kingdom (U.K.), it prioritizes its oversight activities in accordance with the risks posed by a system to the overall financial stability. Therefore, it focuses its major attention on the high value payment systems in the country that include CHAPS, BACS, and CREST. A 2009 report of the BoE titled Payment Systems Oversight Report 2008, which is a self-assessment of the UKs payment systems notes that the main systems operate, to a great degree, in accordance with international standards. The report also states that CHAPS, which is defined as a system with systemic significance, observes eight of the nine core principles.

Sexual Harassment and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) :: Sexual Harassment Essays

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. Federal law as well as various state fair-employment laws prohibit employers with 15 or more employees from treating members of one sex or race differently from members of the opposite sex or another race in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. The statutory and regulatory laws govern the entire employment process from pre-employment activities such as recruiting, through an employee's career with the organization, including termination. The prohibition against sex discrimination imposes responsibility upon employers to afford their employees an environment free from sexual harassment and from the fear that it may occur. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) can file lawsuits on behalf of victims of sexual harassment, women who take their accusations to court face even bigger obstacles than mere public disapproval. The legal process is long and cumbersome - it can be years from the first complaint to the final verdict and in the meanwhile, the woman is in a legal, professional and often financial limbo. Women are not entitled to collect damages under the Civil Rights Act - just back pay; so many women don't see this process as worth the trouble. Even those, however, who do file a complaint and win a harassment case, may feel lost. Though, Title VII offers reinstatement to previous job, the individual may be shunned or harassed by co-worker thus making conditions even more uncomfortable than they were beforehand. Common law tort lawsuits, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault and battery, provide a remedy in certain types of sexual harassment cases that is total ly dependent of any of the statutes and governmental agencies. However, the solutions proposed might seem comprehensive in plans to lessen sexual harassment in the workplace and punishment of harassers, women still face formidable obstacles in preventing harassment from continuing. The proposed measures fail to cover all aspects of harassment, though the truth is, it is virtually impossible to formulate a plan to do so.

Success Notes

What is my definition success? Living life to the fullest Achieving small goals in life One’s life is in full balance Not feeling stressed and overwhelmed in life Following my dreams Being in control of my future Having college education Having a careerHaving great friends  the continuous state of action that you have to perform to meet your goals To me success means setting up a goal, and then putting your complete energy towards attaining it. If you can do it all, then the feeling of satisfaction with your effort is what I feel defines the state of bliss – for me that feeling of contentment within myself is Success. What does success means to me?What success means for me? Well success to me means an achievement in life or to do well at. Some of my goals that will lead to my success will have to start with going back to school and getting a degree in a field that I never thought possible. That was my first goal to get into college and now that I have achieved that go al, I see nothing but success in the future. When I get done and I get my bachelor degree, who knows the success I could endurance / achieve.Health, Money, Education Have opportunities to be successful Prosperity and success (ideals)

Unmarried couple - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 11 Words: 3340 Downloads: 2 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Analytical essay Topics: Marriage Essay Did you like this example? Parties whether married or unmarried may contribute to the purchase of a home for themselves, but subsequent events may give rise to a dispute when a relation break up as to the ownership of the property. The problem above is for us to advise Anne upon whether Brian has any claim to a beneficial interest in the family home and how large that share might be as Anne and Brian, who are unmarried put the legal estate of the house in Brianà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s name and no written declaration of trust for their oral agreement that they are joint tenants in equity. If Anne and Brian are married couple, then under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 the court has wide discretionary powers to order the distribution of the coupleà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s property disregard who owns the property legally or equitably. English law does not presume à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“community of ownershipà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  of land even when two adults have lived together in a stable relationship for a long p eriod of time. The solution for cohabitees who are neither married nor in a civil partnership to gain statutory protections would be to write down and legally agree how they intend to share the property, the principle stated in Pettit v Pettit. The express trusts of land are subject to additional formalities as prescribed in Section 53(1)(b) Law of Property Act 1925. The statutory prescription is that, in order for an express trust of land to be enforceable, the declaration of trust muts be evidenced in writing, which is signed by settlor. However, problem often raised as they do not make a written declaration of trust as the situation faced by Anne and Brian in the question. In absence of statutory protection under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and express trust for Anne, the court is, therefore in effect, looking backwards at what Anne and Brian decided about the property and determine what the property interest would be for Anne under equity. Where the legal title to prop erty has been conveyed in the name of one party only, and his partner wishes to claim a beneficial interest, the claimant is required to establish the existence of a common intention constructive trust. The presumptions of resulting trust and advancement will not be readily adopted in order to quantify the interests of the parties because such presumptions have outlived their usefulness in this context. Lord Diplock in Gissing v Gissing replaced the presumptions with à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“common intention constructive trustsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . The effect is that where the legal title is vested in the name of one party, where in this case, legal title is vested in name of Brian, the inference is that equity follows the law and Brian with the legal title is prima facies solely entitle to the equitable interest. If the party without the legal title, Anne wishes to claim an interest in the property, she bears the legal burden of proving that both parties had an intention to give Anne an interest in the property which was relied on to her detriment. The existence of a common intention may be express or implied by reference to the circumstances of each case. The court is required to interpret the surrounding facts with a view to ascertaining the intentions of the parties with regard to a share in the home. According to Lord Bridge in Lloyds Bank plc v Rossett, a case where the property has been registered in the name of one of the parties only, there are two types of common intention constructive trust, which Rosset 1 and Rosset 2 (express agreement plus detriment reliance OR substantial direct financial contribution to purchase). Lord Bridge explained Rosset 1 that to establishing a beneficial interest under a constructive trust is to establish that prior to the acquisition of the home (or exceptionally at some later date), the legal owner and the claimant reached à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“an express agreement, arrangement, or understandingà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  to share the beneficia l ownership of the home. Provided that the arrangement was expressed in discussion between the parties, it does not matter that the terms were imprecise and that the partiesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ recollection of the express agreement is à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“imperfectà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . In addition to proving that there was an express agreement or arrangement, the claimant must also show that she acted to her à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“detrimentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  or significantly altered her position in reliance on the agreement. Rosset 2 is where no evidence of detrimental reliance upon an express agreement, arrangement, or understanding to share, the parties à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“common intentionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  to share must be inferred instead from their conduct. However, inferring a common intention from contributions to the purchase price, was criticized because it failed to take into account non-financial contributions, such as to the running of the home. This is different with the judgment in Gissing v Gi ssing that contributions other than financial can create an interest in the home. In Stack v Dowden, Lady Hale said that there is undoubtedly an argument for saying, as did the Law Commission in Sharing Homes, A Discussion Paper, para 4.23, that the observations, which were strictly obiter dicta, of Lord Bridge of Harwich in Lloyds Bank plc v Rossett have set that hurdle rather too high in certain respects. The à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“common intentionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  in express trusts must be to à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“share the homeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , not just to share their lives. Thus, the claimant in Thomas v Fuller-Brown carried out extensive building work on the defendantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s house and agreed that this was in return for her keeping him would not help to establish an interest in family home as there is no discussion of him having half share. Furthermore, the common intention between the parties must be à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“expressedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , as in Springette v DeFoe, Dillon LJ said that the it is not enough that the parties happened to be thinking on the same lines in her uncommunicated thoughts. Nevertheless, some criticisms received as this has not deterred the courts from interpreting express statements according to uncommunicated thoughts of the persons making them, sometimes in ways that seem entirely inconsistent with the actual words employed. In Grant v Edwards and Eves v Eves, the claimants established beneficial interest in the defendantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s lad even though the expressed understanding between the parties in each case was that the defendant had no intention of placing the claimantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s name on the legal title. In Grant v Edwards, the defendant explained that he did not want to place the claimantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s name on the title because it might prejudice matrimonial proceedings pending between the defendant and his wife. In Eves v Eves, the defendant explained that he would not be placing the claimantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s name on the legal title as she was too young. In both cases, the courts held that the express à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“explanationsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  were, in reality, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“excusesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  and that they therefore constituted express evidence of an unspoken understanding between the parties that the claimant was entitled to a beneficial interest in the land. Simon Gardener has criticized this type of reasoning: If I give an excuse for rejecting an invitation to what I expect to be a dull party, it does not mean that I thereby agree to come: on the contrary, it means that I do not agree to come, but for one reason or another I find it hard to say outright. It could then be suggested that the fact that one party lies is explicit evidence that there is no intention to share the family home. Therefore, Anne able to establish her beneficial interest as there is expressed common intention that they orally agreed joint tenant in equity. Once an express common intention is found, the person seeking to establish the existence of a constructive trust must prove that she relied on that agreement to her detriment. The facts that that Anne had pay maintenance for their children, remains in the house and pays for all the outgoings and also undertakes extensive renovation and maintenance work on the house, paying for the materials and doing the manual work herself, whether or not these would amount to detrimental reliance? In Grant v Edwards, Browne-Wilkinson VC stated, following Fox LJ in Midland v Dobson, that mere common intention is not by itself enough, the claimant has also to prove that she has acted to her detriment in the reasonable belief by so acting she was acquiring a beneficial interest. There are two main barriers to proof of detrimental reliance. The first is to demonstrate that the claimant has suffered a detriment. On one view, the claimant who gives up a career to care for a home and children has been liberated from the need to work , has enjoyed the delight of daily contact with her children, and has lived rent free for several years in a house that is legally owned by someone else. Browne-Wilkinson VC was alert to these obstacles in Grant v Edwards, when he held that setting up house together, having a baby and making payments to general housekeeping expenses may all be referable to the mutual love and affection of the parties and not specifically referable to the claimantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s belief that she has an interest in the house. However, their Lordships decided that Mrs Grant had acted to her detriment and granted her a half-share in house. Nourse LJ described detrimental reliance as à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“conduct on which the woman could not reasonably be expected to embark unless she was to have an interest in the homeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . The second barrier the claimant will face, assuming a detriment has been established, is to prove that the detriment was suffered as a causal consequence of the express ar rangement between the parties. As Browne-Wilkinson VC mentioned, referring to Eves v Eves, there has to be link between the common intention and the acts relied on as a detriment. Therefore, Anne may rely on both Rosset 1 and Rosset 2 to establish that she having beneficial interest over the family home property as Anne pays the whole cost of the house with money given by her father would be considered that it is direct financial contribution to purchase price under Rosset 2 regardless there is any common intention. Besides , Anna may also establish beneficial interest under Rosset 1 as Anne and Brian agree that they are joint tenants in equity amounted to à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“common intentionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  and it is à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“expressedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  by oral agreement. Further, two main barriers to proof of detrimental reliance mentioned by Nourse LJ also is not a problem for Anne as she doing manual work for the renovation of home. This may constitutes as à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“cond uct on which woman could not reasonably be expectedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  as manual work is something should expected done by man. As stated in Stack v Dowden, there is a two-stage procedure the courts approach the question, establishing a beneficial interest is stage one and stage two is to establish the size of that interest. Therefore, since we have already proved stage one that Anne has beneficial interest in the family home, the further we have to prove for stage two is to quantify the interest or shares in the property. The size of the shares is determined according to the terms of the express trust, if they ever created one as stated in Goodman v Gallant, this has been confirmed in Clough v Killey that when the parties expressly agree on beneficial shares, provided there is some detrimental reliance, that understanding will almost certainty be enforce by the courts. In the absence of any express trust, the question of quantification depends upon the facts of the case. If the n on-legal owner has established some interest under a constructive trust by either of the Rosset types, but there is no evidence that the parties expressly agreed the size of their respective shares, it falls to the court to identify the shares that they probably intended, on the basis of à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“a survey of the whole course of dealing between the parties relevant to their ownership and occupation of the propertyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , as stated in Midland Bank v Cooke. This can include such matters as labour, housework, childcare and so on. This, however received criticism as represents a departure from the inflexible approach laid down in Burns v Burns, in which May LJ held that the court was only entitled to take into account direct financial contributions. The fact that Anne and Brian orally agreed that they are joint tenant in equity, but it is only an agreement to share, but in unspecified proportions. In Oxley v Hiscock, Chadwick LJ stated that it must not be accepted that the answer is that each is entitled to the share which the court considers fair having regard to the whole course of dealing between them in relation to the property. This includes arrangements which they make from time to time in order to meet the outgoings, i.e. housekeeping, mortgage contributions, council tax and utilities, which have to be met if they are to occupy the property as a home. The court is simply imputing a common intention as to the partiesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ respective shares on the basis of that which, in the light of all the material circumstances, including the acts and conduct of the parties after the acquisition is shown to be fair and reasonable. The main argument that Anne might makes is that Brian has totally no shares in the house as they make an oral agreement when Brian moves out of their house, that as he does not plan to pay any maintenance for their children, and renounces any claim that he might have to the beneficial ownership of the house. Ther efore, the issue here is whether or not the common intention can change over the time? Whether an initial common intention as regards the allocation of the beneficial interest can be considered to have changed over time was considered in Jones v Kernott. In this case, a couple had purchased a house which was conveyed into their joint names. They lived together for 8 years before separated. It was accepted that, at that time, they held the property beneficially in equal shares, there being insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that their beneficial interests followed the legal title. The claimant continued to live in the house with their children, whilst the defendant had acquired alternative accommodation and made no further contribution towards the acquisition of the property. The claimant assumed sole responsibility for paying the mortgage, and for repairs and improvements of the property. The defendant severed the joint tenancy at the point when the claimant asserted that their beneficial interests were no longer equal. The Supreme Court held that, after their separation, the common intention of the parties had changed. Lady Hale and Lord Walker at para 5.1 stated that the starting point is that equity follows the law and they are joint tenants both in law and equity. The presumption can be displaced by showing (a) that the parties had a different common intention at the time when they acquired the home, or (b) that they later formed the common intention that their respective shares would change. Their common intention is to be deduced objectively from their conduct, and if it is not possible to ascertain by direct evidence or by inference what their actual intention was as to the shares in which they should own the property, the court will then considers the fair shares having regard to the whole course of dealing between them in relation to the property. However, Lady Hale also mentioned that each case will turn on its own facts, and financial contributions are relevant but there are many other factors which may enable the court to decide what shares were either intended or fair. Therefore, it is confirmed in Jones v Kernott case that the partiesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ initial common intention as to the allocation of the beneficial interest had changed at the time Brian moves out and make an oral agreement renounces any claim that he might have to the beneficial ownership of the house. Even though the common intention had change when Brian made the oral agreement to give up the shares of the house, however there is another problem for court to consider whether the family home now belongs completely to Anne or some little shares still remains with Brian. In Stack v Dowden, Baroness Hale at para 69 stated that some of the factors to be taken into account, such as legal advice at the time of purchase, discussions between the couple, the reason they chose a joint tenancy, the reason they bought the house, who paid for the mort gage, separate or joint finances, who paid household expenses, the characters and personalities of parties to show true intentions, extension or substantial improvement to the house. She also mentioned that an arithmetical calculation is not so important in deciding the shares of family home property. According to Baroness Hale in Stack v Dowden at para 69, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"in law, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“context is everythingà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  and the domestic context is very different from the commercial worldà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢. This is hard to square with recent decision in which courts have proceeded on the assumption that there is prima facie no substantial difference between domestic and business contexts when deciding fair shares under a constructive trust, e.g. Gallarotti v Sebastianelli, a case of two friends living together. If Anne able to show that she has the beneficial interest of the family home property, she needs to show further that the common intention had changed when B rian moves out from the property and family home belongs completely to her. From my view, I think Anne able to argue and claims that she owned the whole shares of the property regardless any agreement made between Brian and her, as (i) she paid for the whole purchase price of the property, (ii) she remains in the house and pays for all the outgoings, including taking care of their three children, (iii) she also undertakes extensive renovation and maintenance work on the house, paying for the materials and doing the manual work herself that it should be done by man normally, (iv) no fact to show in question whether any contributions made by Brian before he leaves the home. Even if he did makes any contributions for their home, for his three children, we may still able to argue that he stayed in the house for 5 years, but left everything to Anne for 18 years and stop paying anything afterwards. It is unfair to Anne if Brian able to get any shares as he did not contributes any to the p urchase price and he never contributes anything to the house, to their children in the period of 18 years he disappears. Despite the best efforts of the judges in the House of Lords and Supreme Court, there remains much uncertainty as to when the presumption that the beneficial interests should follow the legal interests will be rebutted. Although the presumption is to be rebutted in exceptional circumstances, such as in case of Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott. It is however, uncertain what makes a case exceptional and so allows the use of the holistic inquiry by reference to a myriad of factors, the significance of those factors being unclear. The sound of reforming the law became stronger after the case Pamela Curran v Brian Collins as the judge blasts à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"sexist lawsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ that left woman destitute after split from partner. Judge Sir Nicholas Wall said that women tended to lose out in most cases under the current system. Lord Justice Toulson also d escribed the current law as à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"unfairà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢, however, judge should follow the laws instead of à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"sympathy of humanà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢. Therefore, although unmarried couples believe that they are protected by common law as if they were a wife or a husband should still record each partyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s intentions in a legally binding document at the outset. There are some attempts to reform the law, such as Lord Lesterà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Cohabitation Bill, Law Commission Report (2008), Inheritance(Cohabitants) Bill been suggested in 2012 and the Cohabitation Rights Bill in 2013. Sir James Munby has also urged that reform is à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"desperately neededà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢. However, the parliament remain the law unchanged even after so many reforms and bills been suggested. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Unmarried couple" essay for you Create order