Leake (formerly Bruzzi) v Bruzzi
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE STEPHENSON,SIR SEYMOUR KARMINSKI |
| Judgment Date | 26 April 1974 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1974] EWCA Civ J0426-4 |
| Date | 26 April 1974 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
In the Matter of the Married Woman's Property Act, 1882
and
In the Matter of the Matrimonial Causes (Property and Maintenance) Act, 1958:
[1974] EWCA Civ J0426-4
Lord Justice Stephenson
Lord Justice Ormord and
Sir Seymour Karminski
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
The Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)
(From: Mr. Registrar Holloway — London)
(Revised)
Miss SHEILA CAMERON (instructed by Messrs. Rodgers, Forsley & Burton) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Applicant).
Mr. GEOFFERY GRIGSON (instructed by Messrs. Ellis, Wood, Bickersteth & Hazell) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Respondent).
This is an appeal by a wife against an order of Mr. Registrar Holloway made on the 1st October, 1973. By that order he "adjudged and declared that the Respondent" (husband) "holds the beneficial interest in the property 162A Bellingham Road, Catford, London, S.E.6, in trust for himself and the Applicant as tenants in common", and he ordered that the husband pay to the wife within three months of the date of the order a sum representing the value of her interest "calculated in the following manner": and then he sets out the detailed calculation. What it really comes to, as set out in the fourth paragraph of that order, is that the wife's share of the sum resulting from the sale of this property on the exercise of the power of sale was to be one-third and the husband was to have two-thirds. Then there was a direction that if the property was sold (and so on) various other payments should be made.
It is a long and complicated (I will not say unnecessarily complicated) order, but the appeal has really turned on a short point. This couple married on the 15th July, 1367, the husband being an Italian, aged 28, and the wife English and (then) a minor aged 19: she did not become 21 until the 12th March, 1969. By that time they were both living in London in this house, both working; and since June, 1968, they have had a joint bank account. Both of them were contributing repayments towards the mortgage which had been raised on this house. The wife left the husband In February, 1971; and since that date he has been making all the mortgage repayments and he has been living in the house. On her petition (undefended) under section 2(1) (b), she got a decree nisi on the 13th March, 1972, which was made absolute on the 15th June; and on the 6th January, 1973, she re-married. On the 26th of the same month she took out a summons under section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882. The husband apparently goes back to Italy from time totime and was absent from the first hearing of the wife's summons on the 1st September but was present when the registrar made his order on the 1st October, He is not in this country at the moment, and that has put Mr. Grigson, who has appeared for him on the hearing of this appeal but did not appear for him in the court below, in some difficulty, understandably. But we have been able to dispose of this appeal to-day on really a short point of law, on which Mr. Grigson has very properly told us he does not feel able to ask the court to take a different view from that which Miss Cameron, on behalf of the wife, asks us to take.
The property with which we are concerned (and, of course, these being proceedings under section 17, we are only concerned with the legal and beneficial title to it; we are not dealing with a property under section 4 of the 1970 Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act, or its successor) was conveyed into the sole name of the husband on the 9th June, 1967. On the same day there was executed a trust deed, which really (Miss Cameron argues) concludes this appeal in favour of the wife and compels this Court, as it should have compelled the registrar, to decide that the wife is entitled, not to one-third only of the proceeds of the sale of this house, but to one-half, subject to a possible deduction crediting the husband with part of the mortgage repayments which he has made since February, 1971.
That trust deed was between the husband, described as "nominee" — that was, nominee for the purchasers — and himself and his future wife, who were described in it as "the purchasers". It was necessary to execute this deed in that way because she was, as I have said, still an infant. The material parts of that deed read as follows. It begins with a recital: "Whereas (1) This declaration is supplemental to a transfer dated the 9th day of June 1967 and made between" a man named Jones, who was the vendor, and "the nominee" (that is the husband), whereby the freehold property wastransferred to the nominee in fee simple for £4.950. By clause 2 the consideration was provided "(a) as to £3,500 advanced by the Greater London Council upon security of a legal charge and which the purchasers agree shall be repaid from their joint moneys; (b) as to remainder by the purchasers in equal shares and the said property was conveyed to the nominee as the nominee of the purchasers as the nominee hereby acknowledges. (3) The said Jill Raynsford"— that is the future wife — "is under the age of 21 and does not attain her majority until the 12th day of March, 1969. Now this Deed witnesseth as follows: (1) The nominee hereby declares that he holds the said property in trust for the purchasers in fee simple…" I need not read the rest of that clause. "(2) It is hereby agreed and declared that the purchasers shall stand possessed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Dennis v McDonald
-
Goodman v Gallant
...much I may in a sense dislike it, I think that I am clearly bound by the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Wilson v. Wilson, in Leake v. Bruzzi and in Pink v. Lawrence, which were all unanimous decisions on the meaning of similar declarations as to beneficial interests as is found in this......
-
Suttill v Graham
...which such a situation has been approached in the cases to which attention has been called by counsel on behalf of the husband. But in Leake -v- Bruzzi (1974 I W.L.R. p, 1528) this court arrived at a similar conclusion by regarding the mortgage interest paid by the husband while in possessi......
- Ng Li Lin (P) v Ting Tian Hwa