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: Crossley v Crossley [2005] EWCA Civ 1581

Sep 29, 2018, 17:23 PM
Slug : crossley-v-crossley-2005-ewca-civ-1581
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 21, 2005, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86359

(Court of Appeal; May LJ and Sir Peter Gibson; 21 December 2005) [2006] BPIR 404, [2006] FLR (forthcoming)

The property was purchased by the husband, wife and son together under the right to buy legislation, the husband and wife being the local authority tenants. On the husband's death a dispute arose as to the extent of the son's beneficial interest in the property. In the absence of a declaration of beneficial interests, the judge held that there had been a common intention between the three purchasers that the son was to have a beneficial interest of at least one-third, and that on the husband's death the husband's share was to pass to the survivors in proportions equivalent to the existing interests. According to this decision, the son and the wife each owned 50% of the property. The wife appealed, arguing that the judge should have applied principles of resulting trust, and looked at what would have been a fair share having regard to the whole course of dealing over the years.

The judge had first to consider whether there had been an agreement, arrangement or understanding as to the beneficial interests in the property, and if so, whether a specific beneficial interest had been agreed, arranged or understood. If a specific beneficial interest was identified, the court would give effect to the consensus unless there was a good reason for not doing so.

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