27 Nov 2003
NEVILLE SHAUN RICHARDSON V MARY ELIZABETH CASSIN CA CA24/03
- Citation
- openlaw-2862655a_005a_4c38_bc33_a63cc92a8a03.pdf
- Court
- Court of Appeal
On the balance of probabilities the parties had an implicit common intention to share all assets equally and, applying Lankow v Rose, it would be unconscionable for the appellant to retain sole legal title to BEL; therefore respondent is entitled to a 50% share in BEL and related assets and no debt is owing by the respondent to the appellant.