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
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
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