Hazell v Hazell: CA 1972

The parties disputed the shares they should take in a family home.
Held: Shares should normally be ascertained at the time of separation – not at the date when they acquired the house. If a wife contributes directly or indirectly, in money or money’s worth, to the initial deposit or to the mortgage instalments.
Megaw LJ summed up succinctly that it would be sufficient to let the wife in to share the matrimonial home ‘if as a matter of common sense the wife’s contributions ought to be treated as being a contribution towards the expenses of the acquisition of the matrimonial home.’

Lord Denning MR, Megaw LJ
[1972] 1 All ER 923, [1972] 1 WLR 301
England and Wales
Cited by:
AppliedBurns v Burns CA 1984
Long Relationship Not Enough for Interest in Home
The parties lived together for 17 years but were not married. The woman took the man’s name, but beyond taking on usual household duties, she made no direct financial contribution to the house. She brought up their two children over 17 years. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Trusts

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.189967