Evans v Hayward: CA 1 Jun 1992

The property had been bought in joint names at a discounted price under a ‘right to buy’ conferred by the Housing Act 1985; but where the discount was substantially attributable to the plaintiff’s former occupation as local authority tenant. The court considered the appropriate shares on which the property was to be held.
Held: Referring to Springette: ‘In Springette v Defoe the primary issue which arose for decision was whether, as the judge at first instance had held, it was permissible to reach the conclusion that the two parties were to share the beneficial interests in the property equally without regard to their contributions, on the ground that, though neither of them ever said anything about it to the other, each of them had in fact in his or her own mind an uncommunicated belief or intention that they were to share the property equally beneficially. But that view was rejected by this court.’


Lord Justice Dillon


[1995] 2 FLR 511


England and Wales


ExplainedSpringette v Defoe CA 1-Mar-1992
Property was purchased in joint names, but with no express declaration of the beneficial interests. The couple had lived together for a short time as joint tenants of the local authority. They were able to purchase at a substantial discount from the . .
CitedHuntingford v Hobbs CA 1-Mar-1992
The parties lived together in a property transferred to the woman after her divorce. That house was sold and the defendant contributed the capital. There was a joint mortgage, but the plaintiff alone had an income from which to make payments. The . .

Cited by:

CitedOxley v Hiscock CA 6-May-2004
The parties were not married, but had brought together their resources to purchase a home in the name of one of them. Nothing had been said about the respective shares on which the property was to be held.
Held: The shares were to be assessed . .
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.


Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.199949