Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
H and W were married, and that marriage was dissolved in 1970. They were then joint owners in the house under dispute, which had been bought in 1963 for 3,600 pounds. Prior to the divorce, H had been ordered to pay 2 pounds per week to the wife and 2.50 pounds per week for their children. H remained in occupation of the home. In 1970, W applied for an order under the 1882 Property Act for the sale of the house and the division of the proceeds. No further steps were taken until 1972. At that time, H was in arrears for maintenance of 194 pounds. Eventually, after long negotiations, the matter came before the magistrates’ court and just prior to the appearance a deal was made. W’s attorney was not there, but there is no suggestion that W had been taken advantage of. The court was then asked to authorize the discharge of the maintenance order against H and to continue the order for the child, to order H to pay 100 pounds of arrears for W’s maintenance and to order remission of the balance. The court was also asked to order H to pay 1,500 pounds to W and W would transfer to H her interest in the house. The orders were issued, and H paid 100 pounds to W. H then borrowed 1,500 pounds from a building society and paid that sum to his solicitor, and the deed was prepared to transfer W’s interests and was sent to W. W then refused to sign and then renewed her application under the Property Act. W relied on specific provisions of section 40 of the 1925 Property Act in that the agreement had to be in writing. H relied on the part performance doctrine, and the registrar held that part performance was present and that H should prevail. W then appealed, and the Judge found no part performance. H then appealed, and that court held that there was part performance. W then appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co