Chapman v Chapman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE EDMUND DAVIES,LORD JUSTICE MEGAW |
| Judgment Date | 19 June 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] EWCA Civ J0619-4 |
| Date | 19 June 1969 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1969] EWCA Civ J0619-4
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal by Mr. Chapman from Order of His Honour Judge Connolly Gage at Luton Country Court on 26th September, 1968.
The Master of The Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Edmund Davies and
Lord Justice Megaw.
Mr. G. MERRYLEES (instructed by Messrs. Lathom & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant husband.
Mr. D. NAISH (instructed by Messrs. Waltons) appeared on behalf of the Respondent wife.
This is the first case between husband and wife that we have had in this Court since the House of Lords decided Pettitt v. Pettitt (1969 2 W.L.R. 966). Husband and wife were married on 2nd April, 1960. He was an officer with an airways company, earning about £1,300 a year. She was working earning £12 10s. 0d. a week. That is £650 a year. They found a house, No. 54 Norman Road, Barton, Bedfordshire. The price was £4,000. They put up £800 as deposit between them; the husband paid £680, the wife £120. The balance of £3,200 was raised on mortgage with a building society. They arranged that the wife, out of her earnings, would pay for all the food, etc., and he, out of his earnings, would pay for the mortgage on the house, the rates, etc. They kept to those arrangements. The house was purchased in June 1966. They occupied it and both of them continued working. But then unfortunately in June 1968 they separated after two years of marriage. The house was sold for £4,500, at a profit. After paying the mortgage and other items to come out of it, the balance left in hand was £916. The question is how the £916 to be divided is. The wife says that the £916 should be divided equally between them - £453 each; whereas, the husband says that, before it is divided, each should have out of it the amount each paid for the deposit. The husband £680; the wife £120; and then the balance of £116 should be divided between them - £58 each.
The Judge held that the acquisition of this house was a joint venture. That is not disputed. But the question is whether it was on equal terms. The Judge held that it was equal. He said: "This was a joint and equal venture. Purely by chance the husband paid more than the wife, but one comes back to the general principle", he said, "laid down in Rimmer v. Rimmer (1953 1 Q.B. 63). Accordingly, I hold that the £916 should be divided equally".
Since the Judge gave his decision, the House of Lords haveconsidered this subject in Pettitt v. Pettitt. (1969 2 W.L.R 966). That case was concerned, as matter of decision, only with work done by husband or wife in the matrimonial home when that home "belongs undoubtedly to the other spouse. In such a case the House approved what was said by this Court in Button v. Button (1968 1 W.L.R. 457), that a husband does not become entitled to a share in the wife's house simply by doing the "do-it-yourself" jobs which husbands often do, and viceversa. But the House was divided as to his rights when he works full-time as a builder on his wife's house, converting it into flats, such as occurred in Jansen v. Jansen (1965 P. 478). Lord Reid and Lord Diplock agreed with this Court in holding that, by such work, he did get an interest. Lord Hodson and Lord Upjohn disagreed with it. Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest did not commit himself. So I think we in this Court should continue to accept Jansen v. Jansen as correctly decided.
In Pettitt v. Pettitt the House also considered the position when each spouse makes a financial contribution to the acquisition of the matrimonial home. In such a case all of their Lordships approved the decision of this Court in Rimmer v. Rimmer (1955 1 Q.B. 63), and cast no doubt on the many decisions of this Court which followed it and extended it. Some of them did not like the expression "family assets" but Lord Diplock used it with advantage to express the gist of the cases: and I think we should go by what he said. It is still the law that when the matrimonial home or the furniture is acquired by the couple as a joint venture, each of them contributing directly or indirectly to the deposit or the mortgage instalments, then it is to be regarded as belonging to them both jointly, no matter that it stands in the name of one only; and, in the absence of any clear division, their interests are to be regarded as equal.
To come to the present case: If the contributions to the deposit at the outset...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gissing v Gissing
...beneficial interest in property in which the legal estate is vested in another. Despite this criticism it has been used in later cases, Chapman v. Chapman (1969) 1 W.L.R. 1367 and Nixon v. Nixon (1969) 1 W.L.R. 1676. It is no doubt a useful loose expression to refer to the possessions of ......
-
Codrington v Codrington
...that the property should be owned jointly. 12 Counsel referred to Hazell v. Hazell [1972] 1 All E.R. 923 at p. 926 and 926 and Chapman v. Chapman [1969] 3 All E.R. 476 and submitted that there should be some form of contribution by the wife towards the purchase of the matrimonial home and t......
-
Stoutt v Stoutt
...the Court of Appeal — Civil Division of England heard following the decision of the House of Lords in Pettitt v. Pettitt (supra) was Chapman v. Chapman [1969] 3 All E.R. 476. There, Lord Denning, M.R. said, (at page 477), after referring to Pettitt's case in which the decision of Rimmer v. ......
- Abdool Hack v Rahieman