000			02266cam a2200337 4500
001			ABS67871
008			040602n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u126373
245			_aOxley v Hiscock
260			_c2004
490			_aWeekly Law Reports _v[2004] 3 WLR 715-752(39)
520			_a[2004] EWCA Civ 546, 6 May 2004. Unmarried couple, appellant (H) and respondent (O), purchased a house in the sole name of H with the assistance of funds raised by H which was sold subsequent to the couple parting. O sought a declaration that the proceeds of the sale were held by H on trust for them both in equal shares, which the judge concurred with. On appeal, H contended that the judge should have applied the presumption that the property had been held on resulting trust for the persons who provided the purchase money in the proportions that they provided and no discussions at the time of purchase as to intended shares could displace it. "Held": appeal allowed. If there had been express discussions at the time of purchase sufficient to establish common intention that both parties would share beneficial interest, the court would be entitled to answer the question of the intended extent of the beneficial interest by inference from the parties subsequent conduct. H's far greater direct contribution to the purchase price had not be given sufficient weight by the judge. Found that H should have 60% and O 40% of the proceeds of the sale.View judgement at www.bailii.org.
590			_aABS
590			_aABS
590			_aABS
650			_aOXLEY V HISCOCK
650			_aRIGHT TO BUY
650			_aSTOKES V ANDERSON
650			_aBENEFICIAL INTEREST
650			_aCONSTRUCTIVE TRUST
650			_aLLOYDS BANK V ROSSET
650			_aMIDLAND BANK PLC V COOKE
650			_aSPRINGETTE V DEFOE
650			_aGRANT V EDWARDS
650			_aYAXLEY V GOTTS
690			_aPROPERTY AND LAND LAW-CASE LAW
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/546.html _zView judgment at BAILII websiteƯ
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/546.html _zView judgment at BAILII websiteƯ
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/546.html _zView judgment at BAILII websiteƯ
942			_n0
999			_c117443 _d117443