Roy Green v Vivia Green: PC 20 May 2003

PC (Jamaica) The claimant sought a declaration that he was entitled to one half of the marriage assets on divorce. They had each acquired various properties and assets both in Jamaica and the USA. The judge at first instance had found for an equal share, and he now appealed a finding on appeal that he was entitled only to a one third share.
Held: An appellate court must interfere in a judge’s finding only if he was clearly in error. That could not be shown here, and te judge’s order was restored.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Millett, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
[2003] UKPC 39
Bailii, PC
Commonwealth
Citing:
CitedGissing v Gissing HL 7-Jul-1970
Evidence Needed to Share Benefical Inerests
The family home had been purchased during the marriage in the name of the husband only. The wife asserted that she had a beneficial interest in it.
Held: The principles apply to any case where a beneficial interest in land is claimed by a . .
CitedGrant v Edwards and Edwards CA 24-Mar-1986
A couple were not married but lived together in Vincent Farmhouse in which the plaintiff claimed a beneficial interest on separation. The female partner was told by the male partner that the only reason for not acquiring the property in joint names . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.182236