• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Property law report - Whether Carol has rights in the property

Extracts from this document...


PROPERTY LAW REPORT (a) WHETHER CAROL HAS RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY In the absence of evidence of express agreement, an agreement to have beneficial share may be implied from contributions to the purchase of the property. Therefore, Carol has satisfied this requirement as she is paying the monthly sum to David equal to the mortgage payments and therefore, it would be inequitable to deny the agreement. The facts that have been given in the question with regards to Carol are similar to the case of Carlton v Goodman1, in the sense that Carol has supplied the 10% deposit on the flat as well as pay the monthly mortgage, although the mortgage is in David's name, Carol had intended to acquire beneficial interest in the flat and the David be the nominee as his name is used for the purpose of the mortgage. Also it seems more probable than not that Carol and David had a common intention to live together in the flat. This is because Carol is paying the monthly sum and also David has lent his name to be on the mortgage. In Midland Bank Plc v Cooke2 Waite Lj recognised the inference of a common intention can be from financial contributions (which Carol is doing). But the significance of Cooke appears to be that the relationship between the parties can be used to justify finding common intention. Therefore, it seems more probable than not that Carol and David had a common intention to live together in the flat as though they were married. ...read more.


The leading case is Pettit v Pettit16, where the courts held that improving property by itself is not enough. Therefore, Carol would not have interest in the mill on the basis of supervising the restoration work. Although many of the dicta concentrate on the question whether the facts can justify an inference as to the parties intentions at the time of purchase, several leading cases such as Gissing v Gissing17 and Austin v Keele18 have recognised that a subsequent intention will be effective. From the facts that have been given, it seems evident that Carol and David had a common intention to live in the mill together once it had been restored. Carol has contributed financially to the purchase of the mill and has also acted to her detriment as she has given up her employment; therefore, she should have an interest in the mill (Eves v Eves19). The facts in the question with regard to Carol seem to fit with Lloyds Bank Plc v Rossett20, where the claimant has spent a lot of time supervising restoration work on the house as well as doing some work herself. Lord Bridge held that there was a detriment. Therefore, if the principal in Lloyds Bank Plc were followed, it is evident that Carol would have an interest in the flat. As Carol did some work to the mill, courts may sometimes regard this as common intention. Where the work is substantial, then it may be possible to persuade the courts to find a common intention. ...read more.


In Beechor v Major34 the courts held that the investments were gifts. Therefore, if the principal in Beechor is followed, it is more probable than not that the courts are likely to view the car as a gift to Carol from David. Therefore, he would not be entitled to have the car back (Bateman Television Ltd v Bateman35). 1 [2002] 2 FLR 259 2 [1995] 4 All ER 562 at pp 574 - 576 3 [1971] AC 886 at p. 905 4 [1984] CH 317 5 [1959] 1 W.L.R 624 6 [1991] 1 AC 107, 133 7 [2001] 2 F.L.R 970 8 [1975] 1 WLR 1338 9 [1986] CH 638 10 [1992] 11 [1971] AC 886 at p. 906 12 1925, s 53 (1) 13 [1955] 1 Q B 234 14 [1953] 1. Q B 63 15 [2003] 2 P & CR 16 [1970] AC 777 17 [1971] AC 886 18 (1987) 61 A Lj R 605 19 (1975) 1 WLR 1338 20 [1991] 1 A.C 107 21 [1968] 1 WLR 457 22 [1990] 2 FLR 505 23 [1986] 2 All ER 426 24 (1996) P & CR D22 25 [1990] CH 206 26 [1986]2 All ER 426 27 [2004] E WCA Civ 546 28 (1992) 24 HLR 652 29 [1970]AC 777 at p. 803-804 30 [1971] AC 886 at p. 897 (Lord Reid) 31 [1995] 4 All ER 562 32 [1996] 1 FLR 826 33 (1975) 1 WLR 1338 34 (1865) 2 Dr & Sm 431 35 1971 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Our Day Out section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Our Day Out essays

  1. Experiment to find the concentration of water in potato cells through Osmosis.

    There we enjoyed some late night chatter. I felt more and more comfortable with Carol, so I asked her about herself. "Carol, how long have you worked at the shelter?" I asked casually. Carol glanced at the ceiling as she calculated and then looked at me and answered, "Well, I guess it's been nearly twenty years now since `My Walk.'

  2. Making clear reference to the critics show your view of Carol and John's relationship ...

    of his role of lecturer and begins to tell stories about sexual acts and using terms such as "John: I like you". This can be seen as an intimate comment or as John trying to level with the student. Linda Lopez McAllister (1995)

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work