Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
FINANCIAL REMEDIES: Chapman v Jaume  EWCA Civ 476
Sep 29, 2018, 21:31 PM
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article :
Prioritise In Trending Articles :
May 2, 2012, 10:32 AM
Article ID :98727
(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Etherton, Lewison; 29 March 2012)
Upon the woman's divorce the matrimonial property transferred into her sole name by which time she had started a new relationship and the man was mostly living with her. The man lent the woman over £130,000 to carry out refurbishment. When the couple split up the man claimed £162,589.42 constituting the money he lent plus interest. The woman claimed the money had not been lent and had been given in lieu of her contribution to the running costs of the household. Judge found because the man had failed to set out the terms of the loan, particularly when it was to be repaid the claim should fail entirely.
Appeal allowed and issues of quantum remitted to county court judge. The judge should have drawn the inference that the money was repayable a reasonable time after demand, in this case, at the very latest after the house was sold.