McGrath v Wallis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 1995 |
| Date | 10 March 1995 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Nourse, Lord Justice Hirst and Sir Ralph Gibson
Equity - presumption of advancement - evidence required to rebut
Where a house had been acquired for joint occupation but was conveyed into the name of only one of the occupants, the equitable presumption of advancement was to be considered as a judicial instrument of last resort. Not only in cases between husband and wife but also in those between father and child the presumption was rebuttable by comparatively slight evidence.
Thus where a house was acquired for a father and his son but was put in the son's name to enable a mortgage to be obtained and where evidence existed of proposals that the beneficial interest should be shared, there could be no doubt that the presumption was rebutted.
The Court of Appeal so held allowing an appeal by the plaintiff, Mrs Margaret McGrath, from the refusal by Judge Simmons sitting in Luton County Court on December 9, 1993, to declare that the defendant, the plaintiff's brother, Mr Brian Wallis, held the property at 10 Talbot Road, Luton, on trust for himself and the estate of his deceased father in unequal shares.
Mr Geoffrey Jaques for the plaintiff; Mr Mark Dencer for the defendant.
LORD JUSTICE NOURSE said that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Low Gim Siah and Others v Low Geok Khim and Another
...10 Ch D 474 (folld) Harrods Ltd v Tester [1937] 2 All ER 236 (distd) Hepworth v Hepworth (1870-71) LR 11 Eq 10 (refd) McGrath v Wallis [1995] 2 FLR 114 (distd) Murless v Franklin (1818) 1 Swans 13; 36 ER 278 (folld) Neo Tai Kim v Foo Stie Wah [1981-1982] SLR (R) 222; [1980-1981] SLR 215, CA......
-
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and Another
...its subordinate status comparable to that of the contra proferentem in the construction of deeds and contracts.` See McGrath v Wallis [1995] 2 FLR 114 (CA) at 115, per Nourse LJ. It is human nature not to give up a possession readily. Judicial nature is no different. 24. The modern rule Tod......
-
Trowbridge v Trowbridge
...Lloyds Bank plc v Rossett [1990] 1 All ER 1111, [1991] 1 AC 107, [1990] 2 WLR 867, HL. MC Bacon Ltd, Re [1990] BCLC 324. McGrath v Wallis[1995] 3 FCR 661, [1995] 2 FLR 114, Midland Bank plc v Cooke[1996] 1 FCR 442, [1995] 4 All ER 562, [1995] 2 FLR 915, CA. National Bank of Kuwait v Menzies......
-
Artist Court Collective Ltd v Sardar Muhammad Ishaq Khan
...back to is the significance of the transfer being made to a company whose whole share capital belonged to Princess Madawi. If (as in McGrath v Wallis [1995] 2 FLR 114, [1995] 3 FCR 661), a father and son both contribute to the purchase of a house which is transferred to the son alone, the ......
-
Equity and Trust
...made towards the equality of the sexes, these criticisms are clearly appropriate. Although it has been suggested in McGrath v Wallis[1995] 2 FLR 114 that the observations made in Pettitt v Pettitt applied equally to cases of parent and child, it is respectfully submitted that this is not im......