Booth v Bults [2018] JCA 135 (25 July 2018)

Booth v Bults [2018] JCA 135 (25 July 2018)

The Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the £160,000 payment was a loan; the documentary and oral evidence supported the conclusion that the payment reflected a 50% beneficial interest in the property, not a loan, and there was no documentation or acknowledgment of a loan by the Respondent.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] JCA 135
Parties
Appellant: Alan Paul Booth; Respondent: Eelke Jan Bults
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
25 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Royal Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Loan Agreements, Beneficial Ownership, Burden of Proof, Self Representation, Documentary Evidence
Contract Law Property Law Loan Agreements Beneficial Ownership Burden of Proof Self Representation Documentary Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Paul Booth

Appellant

Eelke Jan Bults

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Royal Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the £160,000 transferred by the Appellant to the Respondent in August 2005 was a loan or a payment reflecting a 50% beneficial interest in property
  2. 2 Whether the Royal Court erred in its assessment of evidence and burden of proof

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the £160,000 payment was a loan; the documentary and oral evidence supported the conclusion that the payment reflected a 50% beneficial interest in the property, not a loan, and there was no documentation or acknowledgment of a loan by the Respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed