Curley v Parkes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE PETER GIBSON |
| Judgment Date | 25 October 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWCA Civ 1515 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | A3/2004/0322 |
| Date | 25 October 2004 |
[2004] EWCA Civ 1515
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE MAYOR QC)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
Lord Justice Peter Gibson
A3/2004/0322
MR J GAROOD (instructed by Messrs RA Savage, Welwyn Garden City AL8 6AT) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MRS N PRESTON (instructed by Messrs Payne Skillington Solicitors, Coventry CV1 2LG) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
This is an appeal by the claimant, Andrew Curley, from part of the order made by His Honour Judge Mayor QC on 7th January 2004 in the Northampton County Court. The judge by his order determined a dispute between Mr Curley and the defendant, Nicola Parkes, with whom he had co-habited, as to the beneficial interest in the property in which they had been living immediately before their separation and which was in her sole name.
The judge dismissed Mr Curley's claim that Miss Parkes and he owned that property, 117 Battalion Drive, Wootton, Northampton, beneficially in equal shares. The judge found that there was neither an agreement nor any common intention that the parties were to share the property beneficially to be inferred from their conduct, so as to give rise to a constructive trust of the property. The judge refused permission to appeal.
Mr Curley sought this court's permission to appeal on a number of grounds. They included:
"4. Alternatively, if contrary to the Appellant's case the Court correctly declined to infer an agreement for a constructive trust, the Judge wrongly refused to consider whether he should have applied the principles appropriate to a resulting trust.
5. Further, had he correctly considered the availability of a resulting trust, the Judge would have been bound to perceive a resulting trust."
Chadwick LJ on paper refused permission to appeal on all grounds save those two which I have quoted, saying that it was arguable that the judge did not adequately address the contention that, by reason of actual contributions made to the purchase price, Mr Curley was entitled to an interest under a resulting trust. That is the only point live before us on this appeal.
The facts can be stated shortly. Mr Curley and Miss Parkes met in September 1998 when they were both working for Vauxhall Motor Company ("Vauxhall") in Bradford. A serious relationship started after a few weeks. She owned a house in Bradford. He had been sharing a flat with another woman. A year later he moved to Durham, living in rented accommodation. Mr Curley and Miss Parkes decided to live together and to move to a location more convenient to both of them. She would sell her Bedford house and purchase another one. They decided on 22 Wellington Way in Richmond which was purchased for £76,630, of which £68,742 was borrowed on mortgage in her own name. The remainder came from the net proceeds of sale of the Bradford house and from her own resources. 22 Wellington Way was registered in her own name. Mr Curley and Miss Parkes moved into the house on 3rd April 2000. As the judge found, they then set up a joint account and both made roughly equal contributions to that joint account. Out of that joint account were met the expenses of the household, including, but by no means confined to, the mortgage instalments. Mr Curley paid Miss Parkes no rent.
In February 2001 Mr Curley was asked by Vauxhall to move to Luton. Vauxhall had a relocation scheme and was prepared to make a contribution towards Mr Curley's removal costs and solicitors' fees, and a contribution towards the increased mortgage costs arising from the greater cost of property if the move entailed moving to a more costly housing area.
Mr Curley explained to Vauxhall that he wanted to take advantage of that relocation scheme, but that he lived with Miss Parkes in a house in her name, although they shared the costs, including the mortgage, equally. He said that the title to the house could not include his name because the mortgagee would not allow that, Mr Curley having run into financial problems at university.
Vauxhall agreed to let Mr Curley take advantage of the relocation scheme. Under the scheme Vauxhall through its relocation company, Cendant Relocation ("Cendant"), purchased 22 Wellington Way from Miss Parkes. Mr Curley and Miss Parkes found 117 Battalion Drive. Contracts for sale were exchanged on 19th April 2001. Completion took place the next day, the property being transferred to Miss Parkes alone. The purchase price was £154,950. The completion statement showed how that sum was paid. The net proceeds of sale of 22 Wellington Way amounting to a little under £9,000 were used. £138,480 was borrowed on mortgage in Miss Parkes' sole name. Further cash totalling some £6,000 was paid by Miss Parkes. No part of the purchase price was paid by Mr Curley. However, he received £8,557.67 under the relocation scheme. Further, monthly sums of about £260 were paid to him in recognition of the higher mortgage payments that would be payable as a result of the purchase of a house in a more expensive area.
Between 17th May 2001 and 14th November 2001 Mr Curley paid into Miss Parkes' current account £9,213 in six instalments. He says that it was supposed to compensate her for the deposit she paid. The judge found that £4,393 was paid to Miss Parkes on or about 21st May 2001, and that was all that remained of the monies from Vauxhall which Mr Curley had treated as his own. Mr Curley also paid a total of £8,775 into the joint account between 15th May 2001 and 15th April 2002.
The relationship between Mr Curley and Miss Parkes ended in February 2002 on Miss Parkes learning that he had been having a relationship with another woman. He claimed, but Miss Parkes refused to accept, that he was entitled to share in the equity of 117 Battalion Drive. He commenced proceedings in about May 2003, claiming a declaration that he and Miss Parkes were beneficially entitled in equal shares to the net proceeds of sale of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mohammed Arshad Alam v Pervez Alam
...without transcending its general liabilities as a group company. These matters are significant since, as Peter Gibson LJ put it, in Curley v Parkes [2004] EWCA Civ 1515, “…the resulting trust of a property purchased in the name of another, in the absence of contrary intention, arises once ......
-
Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and Another
...of the parties should be determined 112 A resulting trust crystallises at the time the property is acquired: see Curley v Parkes [2004] EWCA Civ 1515. The extent of the beneficial interests of the respective parties where a resulting trust arises must be determined at the time when the prop......
-
Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun
...1 WLR 1399 (refd) Aspden v Elvy [2012] EWHC 1387 (Ch) (refd) Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137 (refd) Curley v Parkes [2004] EWCA Civ 1515 (not folld) Gallarotti v Sebastianelli [2012] EWCA Civ 865 (refd) Geary v Rankine [2012] EWCA Civ 555 (refd) Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886 ......
-
Barrett v Barrett
...the purchase price and was not liable to the mortgagee: on the mortgage: see, for example, Carlton -v- Goodman [2002] 2 FLR 259 and and Curley -v- Parkes [2004] EWCA Civ 1515 at paras 14 and 15 per Peter Gibson LJ. Thomas' case is properly analysed as a constructive trust. 7 I should note h......
-
Equity and Trusts
...at the time of acquisition are considered to be relevant in quantifying a party's share. As Peter Gibson LJ observed in Curley v Parkes[2004] EWCA Civ 1515 at [14]: Subsequent payments of the mortgage instalments are not part of the purchase price already paid to the vendor, but are sums pa......