Nelson v Nelson & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1911 (29 November 2001)

Nelson v Nelson & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1911 (29 November 2001)

The claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof that the name Joseph St Rose in the transfer and registration referred to him as an alias rather than to the second defendant. The documentary evidence and inherent probabilities supported the conclusion that the second defendant was the legal owner.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1911
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Joseph Nelson; Defendant/respondent: Matthew Dixon Nelson; Defendant/respondent: Joseph St Rose; Defendant/respondent: Pardeep Pabila
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Ownership of Property, Use of Aliases in Property Transactions, Burden of Proof, Appeals Process
Property Law Civil Procedure Ownership of Property Use of Aliases in Property Transactions Burden of Proof Appeals Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Nelson

Claimant/applicant

Matthew Dixon Nelson

Defendant/respondent

Joseph St Rose

Defendant/respondent

Pardeep Pabila

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was the true legal owner of 18 Arundel Gardens despite the property being registered in the name of Joseph St Rose
  2. 2 Whether the use of the name Joseph St Rose was as an alias for the claimant or referred to the second defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof that the name Joseph St Rose in the transfer and registration referred to him as an alias rather than to the second defendant. The documentary evidence and inherent probabilities supported the conclusion that the second defendant was the legal owner.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal is refused.