Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

PROPERTY: Dibble v Pfluger [2010] EWCA Civ 1005

Sep 29, 2018, 17:33 PM
Slug : 2010EWCA1005
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 4, 2010, 09:59 AM
Article ID : 91597

(Court of Appeal; Ward, Lloyd and Pitchford LJJ; 3 September 2010)

The cohabitants were engaged but never got married and lived in the woman's substantial property. When the property needed renovation, the woman transferred it into their joint names, charged with a £25,000 mortgage.  The deed of trust stated that the beneficial interest was held two thirds by the woman and one third, less mortgage, by the man. The man sold his property and provided a written agreement that he would pay the mortgage repayments. The agreement expressed to terminate when the parties agreed mutually to cease to live together in which event the agreement set out detailed provisions for the disposition of the home. The woman's parents gave her land in Poland on which a home was built. The man contributed money towards the building costs of the Polish home. The original English property was sold and a smaller English property was purchased as tenants in common in equal shares.

The couple separated a few months after they moved to the Polish property. The woman sought an order for sale of the English property on basis of equal division of sale proceeds. The man claimed beneficial interest in Polish property, pleading express agreement and/or common intention evidenced by his payments. The recorder concluded that the man had no interest in Polish property. The man appealed. 

Appeal allowed and re-hearing ordered. The recorder had not considered Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970, s 2 concerning property of engaged couples. Payments towards the purchase/building of a Polish property could indicate a common intention that the defendant would have an interest in the property and it behoved the Recorder to explain why he could not find an inferred or imputed intention to create an interest in the land if such payments had been made.

__________________________________________________________________

Family Law Reports

Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.

They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from