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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles
Authors

PROPERTY: Thompson v Hurst [2012] EWCA Civ 1752

Sep 29, 2018, 18:37 PM
Slug : property-thompson-v-hurst-2012-ewca-civ-1752
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 8, 2013, 02:37 AM
Article ID : 101307

(Court of Appeal, Thorpe, Etherton, Lewison LJJ, 30 March 2012)

The woman lived in local authority accommodation and after 2 years her partner began living with her at the property. After living there for 18 years the woman purchased the property under the right-to-buy scheme for £15,000. When their relationship ended the man remained living there for 4 years with the woman and their two children.

The man claimed a 50% beneficial interest in the property. During the hearing the judge found that the man made sporadic contributions to the household dependant upon when he was employed. However, the woman had sole responsibility for the rent/mortgage payments and had two jobs to cover all of the outgoings. All bills were in her sole name and the property was purchased in her sole name.

The judge found that the couple managed their financial affairs separately but that they had intended to purchase the property together and were only deterred because their chances of getting a mortgage were better if the application was made in the woman's sole name. Therefore, they intended for the man to have a beneficial interest in the property. The extent of that interest was never discussed between them.

The judge assessed the man's interest as 10% taking into account the principles in Oxley v Hiscock and the whole course of dealing between the man and woman. The man appealed, seeking a 50% beneficial interest in the property.

Appeal dismissed. Given that the property was not held in joint names there could be no scope for a legal presumption of joint beneficial ownership. There could be no argument that but for the advice of the mortgage advisor the property would have been held jointly and therefore the court should proceed on the hypothetical basis that that is what took place. Having inferred a common intention that the man should have a beneficial interest the judge carried out the task of assessing its extent in a careful fashion and could not be said to have been plainly wrong.

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