Thompson v Hurst [2012] EWCA Civ 1752 (30 March 2012)

Thompson v Hurst [2012] EWCA Civ 1752 (30 March 2012)

The District Judge correctly applied the principles governing single legal owner cases, found a common intention to share beneficial ownership, and determined a 10% share for the appellant as fair based on the parties' course of dealing. There was no error of principle or plain error in the apportionment, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 1752
Parties
Appellant: Thompson; Respondent: Hurst
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Beneficial Interest, Constructive Trust, Common Intention, Apportionment of Shares, Cohabitation, Right to Buy Scheme
Property Law Trusts Law Family Law Beneficial Interest Constructive Trust Common Intention Apportionment of Shares Cohabitation +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thompson

Appellant

Hurst

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to a greater beneficial interest in the property than awarded by the District Judge
  2. 2 Whether the District Judge erred in law in quantifying the appellant's beneficial interest
  3. 3 Whether principles from Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott were properly applied

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge correctly applied the principles governing single legal owner cases, found a common intention to share beneficial ownership, and determined a 10% share for the appellant as fair based on the parties' course of dealing. There was no error of principle or plain error in the apportionment, and the presumption of equal shares does not apply where the property is in one party's name due to external factors.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • District Judge's order affirmed