Saville v Goodall: CA 1993

The court considered the requirements to establish that property purchased in one name but for an unmarried couple were to be held on trust: ‘[Counsel] referred us to a recent decision of this court in Springette v Defoe [1992] 2 FLR 388, which recognises that the common intention must be communicated between the parties. I think all the authorities on first category cases will be found to be consistent with that proposition.’
Lord Justice Nourse and Lord Justice Evans
[1993] 1 FLR 755
England and Wales
CitedSpringette 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 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.199952