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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
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...
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