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 cannot be exercised. The entitlement to statutory discount which has built up over the years by a secure tenant is valuable. In many cases without the entitlement to discount the property could not be bought at all. It is therefore unlikely that a tenant who is entitled to statutory discount would be prepared simply to give up its monetary value. The default position, as I see it, is that discount will be treated as a contribution to the purchase price. I would expect clear words to signal that the tenant is giving up such a valuable entitlement.’
Aikens, MacFarlane, Lewison LJJ
 EWCA Civ 327
Trustee Act 2000 1
England and Wales
Cited – Springette 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Prime Sight Ltd v Lavarello PC 9-Jul-2013
(Gibraltar) Parties to a contract for the sale of land including the appellant company declared a purchase price which both knew to be false. Faced with insolvency proceedings, the appellant sought to challenge a claim for the full amount.
Cited – Marley v Rawlings and Another SC 22-Jan-2014
A husband and wife had each executed the will which had been prepared for the other, owing to an oversight on the part of their solicitor; the question which arose was whether the will of the husband, who died after his wife, was valid. The parties . .
Cited – Speight v Gaunt HL 26-Nov-1883
A trustee is required to use the same degree of prudence and diligence as a person of ordinary prudence would have done if he had been conducting his own affairs. . .
Cited – Laskar v Laskar CA 7-Feb-2008
The appellant challenged a finding that though she was named as joint tenant of the property with her mother, she had no beneficial interest in it. The property had formerly been a council house tenanted by the respondent and her late husband.
Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522652