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...
Latest articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles

PROPERTY: Parrott v Parkin [2007] EWHC 210 (Admlty)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:14 PM
Slug : parrott-v-parkin-2007-ewhc-210-admlty
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 28, 2007, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87571

(Queen's Bench Division, Admiralty Court; Aikens J; 8 February 2007)

The cohabiting couple owned a property in the woman's sole name, and a boat in the man's sole name. They agreed to sell the first boat, and buy another more expensive boat, also registered in the man's name. The woman, who earned more than the man, had contributed the bulk of the money to these purchases, taking out an additional loan of £73,000 for the more expensive boat. After the separation of the couple, the sale of the property merely covered the accumulated debts. The woman claimed that the man held the boat on trust for her absolutely. The man claimed that the intention had been that the woman would own the property, while he would own the boat.

There had been no agreement, arrangement, or understanding as to the beneficial interests of the two parties in the property at the time of purchase. On the basis of the man's contribution to the purchase price of the property, and the man's work on the property, the woman held the property on constructive trust on behalf of the man, who had a beneficial interest of somewhere between 25% and 40%. The couple had reached an understanding by the time the first boat was purchased, effectively that the woman was buying out the man's beneficial interest in the property by taking out a loan to buy the boat registered in the man's name. However, the woman's contribution to the purchase of the second boat established a resulting trust in favour of the woman, to the extent of the additional sum she had provided to buy the second boat, about 55% of the purchase price.

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