Thomas & Anor v Bulathwela & Anor

Thomas & Anor v Bulathwela & Anor

There was no admissible evidence of Mr Bulathwela's financial contribution to the purchase price or a common intention to share beneficial ownership of Whitchurch Lane. Payments towards the mortgage were made to assist the daughter and were not referable to an agreement to invest at the time of purchase. The exclusion of further evidence was justified due to procedural non-compliance and lack of explanation for delay. New evidence was not sufficiently compelling and could have been obtained earlier.

Parties
Respondent: Edward Thomas; Respondent: Ann Nilsson; Respondent/appellant: Rani Malathi Samarakkodi Bulathwela; Respondent/appellant: Kumar Anton Rohitha Bulathwela
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Beneficial Ownership, Resulting Trust, Constructive Trust, Exclusion of Evidence, Appeal Procedure
Insolvency Property Law Trusts Beneficial Ownership Resulting Trust Constructive Trust Exclusion of Evidence Appeal Procedure

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Thomas

Respondent

Ann Nilsson

Respondent

Rani Malathi Samarakkodi Bulathwela

Respondent/appellant

Kumar Anton Rohitha Bulathwela

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Kumar Bulathwela has a beneficial interest in Whitchurch Lane property
  2. 2 Whether exclusion of further evidence was proper
  3. 3 Whether payments towards mortgage or deposit confer beneficial interest

Ratio Decidendi

There was no admissible evidence of Mr Bulathwela's financial contribution to the purchase price or a common intention to share beneficial ownership of Whitchurch Lane. Payments towards the mortgage were made to assist the daughter and were not referable to an agreement to invest at the time of purchase. The exclusion of further evidence was justified due to procedural non-compliance and lack of explanation for delay. New evidence was not sufficiently compelling and could have been obtained earlier.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No retrial granted
  • Application to admit new evidence refused