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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
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