Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
View all articles
Authors

PROPERTY: Slater v Simm [2007] EWHC 951 (Ch)

Sep 29, 2018, 16:12 PM
Slug : slater-v-simm-2007-ewhc-951-ch
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 27, 2007, 05:11 AM
Article ID : 84925

(Chancery Division; Peter Smith J; 27 April 2007)

The cohabitants had purchased three properties together. In respect of two of the properties there were declarations of trust, albeit altered by a subsequent arrangement; the third property was held in the woman's sole name, although the man had contributed to the purchase price, and there was no declaration of trust. After the death of the woman, her administrator brought proceedings against the man.

The judge made certain findings as to the couple's respective interests in each of the three properties. In relation to the third property he held that a resulting trust had been established; lies told by the man in his financial statement in divorce proceedings to the effect that he had no interest in the property were not sufficient to rebut the presumption that he had acquired a share in the property at the time of its acquisition by virtue of his contribution to the purchase price. The man could establish his beneficial interest without needing to explain why the property had been transferred into the sole name of the woman.

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