Fowler v Barron [2008] EWCA Civ 377
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:02:01 UTC
B had made the vast majority of payments towards a house that was in both his and F’s name and therefore attempted to overturn the presumption that joint ownership means a 50-50 share in the property.
CA denied this, emphasising how heavy the presumptions set out in Stack v Dowden are.
Unlike in Stack, F and B pooled all their assets and it takes more than merely the majority of financial contribution to overturn the presumption.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Abbott v Abbott
H and W got married and H was given some land by his mother in his sole name. H and W took out a joint loan with joint liability for the building of a home. H and W’s earnings went into a joint accou...
Stack v Dowden
The principle of Common Intention Constructive Trust should be applied to determine the beneficial interests in the jointly owned property. The intentions of the parties involved can evolve over time...
Morris v Morris
Under the disposition of a will, H's mother (M) became the sole legal owner of the family farm. Consequently, H and M entered into a joint partnership for the purposes of running the farm and a joint...
Oxley v Hiscock
Property encompasses owned assets, from real estate to investments, governed by legal rights and societal norms. When a property is under one partner's name in an unmarried couple, complexities arise...
Lloyds Bank v Rosset
The house was purchased solely with funds from a trust fund and placed in X’s name. Unbeknown to Defendant, his wife, X took out a mortgage on the house and when he defaulted the bank, Plaintiff, cla...
Related free notes samples
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.