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
Re P (Circumcision: Child in Care) [2021] EWHC 1616 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cobb J, 14 June 2021)Parental Responsibility – Circumcision – 21-month-old Muslim child – Raised in non-Muslim household of extended family – Mother sought...
R (Care Proceedings Joinder of Foster Carers) [2021] EWCA Civ 875
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Baker, Carr, Lewis LJJ, 15 June 2021)Practice and Procedure – Care proceedings – Foster carers joined as party to care proceedings – AppealThe...
The family court’s role in micro managing ‘trivial’ disputes
Sarah Higgins, Partner, Charles Russell Speechlys LLPThe decision in Re (B) (a child) (Unnecessary Private Law Applications) [2020] EWFC B44 dealt with the family court’s role in micro...
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
View all articles

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