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...
Latest articles
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....
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...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
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