Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
View all articles
Authors

PROPERTY:Gallarotti v Sebastianelli [2012] EWCA Civ 865

Sep 29, 2018, 18:17 PM
Slug : 2012ewcaciv865
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 10, 2012, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 99427

(Court of Appeal, Arden, Tomlinson, Davis LJJ, 3 July 2012) 

Two friends bought a flat together with the assistance of a mortgage. S paid the larger share and the title was held in his sole name. The Judge found the parties expressly agreed each would have a 50% share notwithstanding their unequal contributions based on a common intention constructive trust.

The judge also found the existence of a further agreement that G would pay a larger proportion of the mortgage repayments to take account of the unequal contribution to the purchase price but he did in fact not do so. There was no written declaration of trust or compliance with the formalities necessary for the creation of a trust. Taking into account all contributions to the property in total S paid 75% and G paid 25% of the costs towards the flat. S now sought to occupy the flat with his girlfriend to the exclusion of G.

The Court of Appeal set aside the 50:50 division and substituted it with a 75:25 division in favour of S. The agreement did not apply in the events that unfolded. The parties had intended that their financial contributions should be taken into account.

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