Hello, I am looking for someone to write an essay on If facts similar to those in Lloyds Bank v Rosset went to the SC today, and the issue was how to find a beneficial interest: do. It needs to be at

Hello, I am looking for someone to write an essay on If facts similar to those in Lloyds Bank v Rosset went to the SC today, and the issue was how to find a beneficial interest: do. It needs to be at least 2000 words.

Beneficial interest confers the right on an individual to use the property that he/she does not own. The case Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset, entailed a conflict on the beneficial interest regarding a property that was obtained by Mr. Rosset from a trust fund he had set up, where his wife, Mrs. Rosset claimed to have had beneficial interest on the property, owing to the contributions she had made towards the payment of the mortgages to the property and also the development of the property3. Thus, this discussion seeks to analyze the judgment given during an appeal, with a view to establishing whether the same judgment would hold today, should the same facts of the case arise now. The facts under this case provided that Mr. and Mrs. Rosset bought a property, a farmhouse that was not fully completed, using the funds from a family trust fund, but allowed the property to be registered under the name of Mr. Rosset only. The house required some renovations before it could become habitable, and thus the house vendors allowed the family to enter the house several weeks before its completion, so they could commence the repairs and renovation3. The renovation and repair work was supposed to be a joint venture between the wife and the husband, Mr. and Mrs. Rosset. ...

the purchase and the renovations from the family trust fund, and thus decided to take a loan from Lloyds Bank, which placed a legal charge on the property, from the day of its completion, all these, without the knowledge of Mrs. Rosset4. After the completion of the house, Mr. Rosset defaulted on the payment of the loan to the bank, and the Bank sought to effect the legal charge that was placed on the house. In this case, Mrs. Rosset sought to bar the bank from executing the charge, citing beneficial interest in the property, by the virtue of being its occupant5. She argued that the virtue of actual occupation of the property was an overriding interest. Holding that there was no evidence between the parties to share the beneficial interest, and that the contributions made by the wife were also considered secondary, the court of appeal ruled that Mrs. Rosset did not have any beneficial interest in the property. Nevertheless, there are various developments that have occurred in cohabitation cases and laws guiding beneficial interests, from the date of the ruling of this case. There are several issues that were raised in this case. First, it was the issue of common intention of ownership of the property, where it was to be determined whether both Mr. and Mrs. Rosset had any common intention to have the ownership of the property shared. Secondly, there was the issue of the quantum of sharing the common interest, raising the question of what was the common intention of the parties regarding the quantum of the shares3. While the contribution that was made by Mrs.