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

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