Rebutting presumption of advancement
Language: English Series: Times ; 13 April 1995, 36(1)Publication details: 1995Subject(s): Summary: In "McGrath v Wallis", CA 10 March 1995, it was held that where a house had 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.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | WB3115-50 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 52079-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| WB3115-42 Wind farms | WB3115-48 Architects | WB3115-49 Reasonable notice required | WB3115-50 Rebutting presumption of advancement | WB3116-100 Validity offers no criminal defence | WB3116-112 Financing agreement | WB3116-113 Negligence |
In "McGrath v Wallis", CA 10 March 1995, it was held that where a house had 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.