Crossley v Crossley: CA 21 Dec 2005

The claimant appealed an order that a house was to be held in equal shares with her son. The house was registered in their joint names, but the transfer contained no declaration of the interests. The house had been originally bought by the mother and father and the son whose name was put on the house and mortgage ‘to give him some interest.’ The father had since died.
Held: The judge had been correct to reject a presumption of a resulting trust, given express findings as to the parties intentions. Whilst her judgment was subject to criticism, she had been entitled to reach the conclusion she had done: ‘the legal estate had been transferred to the defendant as well as Mr Alan Crossley and the appellant. They were joint tenants of that legal estate, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary the equitable interests would follow the legal interests. . . the transferees undertook joint and several liability under the mortgage. That too suggests a beneficial joint tenancy of the property on which the mortgage had been secured. Third, . . . Mr Alan Crossley told the defendant after the visit to the solicitors to complete the purchase that the property would be his one day, again suggests that Mr Alan Crossley was of the view that the defendant would take the property one day and would do so by survivorship. The defendant had siblings and Mr Alan Crossley died intestate, so that the likelihood is that as a result of the transfer into joint names it was expected that the defendant alone would own the property eventually by surviving his parents. Fourth, the appellant herself was of the view that the defendant would recover his contributions to the purchase and would do so on her death. Again, this is consistent with the surviving joint tenant taking on the death of the survivor of the joint tenants. ‘
May LJ, Sir Peter Gibson
[2005] EWCA Civ 1581
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996
England and Wales
CitedPettitt v Pettitt HL 23-Apr-1969
A husband and wife disputed ownership of the matrimonial home in the context of the presumption of advancement.
Lord Reid said: ‘These considerations have largely lost their force under present conditions, and, unless the law has lost its . .
CitedCowcher v Cowcher 1972
Where property is to be transferred into the names of two or more people, solicitors should take the instructions of transferees as to the beneficial interests in the transferred property. . .
CitedLloyds Bank plc v Rosset HL 29-Mar-1990
The house had been bought during the marriage but in the husband’s sole name. The plaintiff’s charge secured the husband’s overdraft. The bank issued possession proceedings. Mr Rosset had left, but Mrs Rosset claimed, as against the bank an interest . .
CitedLavelle v Lavelle and others CA 11-Feb-2004
Property had been purchased in the name of of the appellant by her father. She appealed a finding that the presumption of advancement had been rebutted.
Held: The appeal failed. The presumption against advancement had been rebutted on the . .
CitedKyriakides v Pippas 2004
When considering the trusts on which land is held, and where there is no declaration of trust, the court puts itself in the position of a jury and considers all the circumstances of the case, so as to arrive at the purchaser’s real intention: ‘I . .
CitedFlannery and Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd, Trading As Colleys Professional Services CA 18-Feb-1999
A judge at first instance taking a view on an expert’s report should give reasons in his judgment for that view. On appeal, where no reasons had been given, he should be asked to provide reasons by affidavit for the appeal. An inadequately reasoned . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 April 2021; Ref: scu.236610