Laskar v Laskar

Laskar v Laskar

The presumption of equal beneficial ownership does not apply where the property is purchased primarily as an investment, not as a home, even between family members. The right to buy discount is attributable solely to the respondent as the secure tenant. The mortgage liability, taken jointly, should be apportioned...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Miss Rini Laskar; Respondent: Mrs Zubera Laskar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; appellant's beneficial interest increased to 33%; refusal to order account upheld.
Legal Topics
Beneficial Ownership, Resulting Trust, Presumption of Equality, Presumption of Advancement, Right to Buy Discount, Mortgage Contributions, Account of Rental Income
Property Law Equity Beneficial Ownership Resulting Trust Presumption of Equality Presumption of Advancement Right to Buy Discount Mortgage Contributions +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Rini Laskar

Appellant

Mrs Zubera Laskar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presumption of equal beneficial ownership applies to property purchased jointly by mother and daughter as an investment
  2. 2 How the right to buy discount and mortgage contributions should be attributed in determining beneficial interests
  3. 3 Whether an account of rental income should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption of equal beneficial ownership does not apply where the property is purchased primarily as an investment, not as a home, even between family members. The right to buy discount is attributable solely to the respondent as the secure tenant. The mortgage liability, taken jointly, should be apportioned equally. The appellant's beneficial interest is 33%, reflecting her contributions. An account of rental income is not ordered due to proportionality, management by the respondent, and lack of earlier claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; appellant's beneficial interest increased to 33%; refusal to order account upheld.

Orders

  • Declaration that appellant's beneficial interest is 33%
  • Refusal to order an account of rental income upheld