Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
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