Ashe v Mumford: CA 2001

The court considered the relative interests arising in the trust of a house bought under the right to buy scheme.
Held: The court upheld the trial judge’s decision that the discount should not be apportioned between the parties, the series of transactions suggested was a sham.
However, there was no absolute rule that entitlement to statutory discount should be treated as a contribution to the purchase price.


Jonathan Parker LJ


[2001] 33 HLR 67


England and Wales


Appeal fromAshe v Mumford and Others ChD 7-Mar-2000
The Regulation under question was procedural;, and a failure to comply with its requirements was not to be deemed fatal. The requirement for a trustee to identify the transactions to be set aside did not require every single part of the scheme to be . .

Cited by:

CitedRichards v Wood CA 27-Feb-2014
The defendants had purchased their council house with financial asistance from their son, the claimant. He now asserted that a trust existed in the property in his favour.
Held: ‘unless there is a secure tenancy the statutory right to buy . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Insolvency

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.541709