Curley v Parkes

Curley v Parkes

The appellant's claimed contributions did not constitute part of the purchase price at the date of acquisition, and there was insufficient evidence of an agreement or liability at that time to support a resulting trust. Payments made after acquisition or for ancillary costs were not relevant for a resulting trust. The judge's failure to address the resulting trust argument did not affect the outcome as the claim had no substantive merit.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Andrew Curley; Defendant/respondent: Nicola Parkes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Resulting Trusts, Constructive Trusts, Beneficial Interests in Property, Cohabitation
Trusts Property Law Resulting Trusts Constructive Trusts Beneficial Interests in Property Cohabitation

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Curley

Claimant/appellant

Nicola Parkes

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to a beneficial interest in property under a resulting trust based on contributions to the purchase price
  2. 2 Whether payments made after acquisition or for ancillary costs constitute contributions to the purchase price for the purposes of a resulting trust

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's claimed contributions did not constitute part of the purchase price at the date of acquisition, and there was insufficient evidence of an agreement or liability at that time to support a resulting trust. Payments made after acquisition or for ancillary costs were not relevant for a resulting trust. The judge's failure to address the resulting trust argument did not affect the outcome as the claim had no substantive merit.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs assessed at £3,900