[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Wodzicki v Wodzicki [2017] EWCA Civ 95 (24 February 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/95.html Cite as: [2018] 1 FLR 473, [2017] 2 P &, [2017] 2 P &CR DG1, CR DG1, [2017] EWCA Civ 95 |
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT CENTRAL LONDON
HHJ Faber
3LB00212
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division
LORD JUSTICE DAVID RICHARDS
The Rt. Hon. SIR STEPHEN TOMLINSON
____________________
Juliette Malisz Wodzicki |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
Monique Wodzicki |
Respondent |
____________________
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented
Hearing dates : 3 November 2016
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
DAVID RICHARDS LJ :
"that there should be an accounting process to determine the extent of the parties' beneficial interests to be carried out by a District Judge who must determine as best as can be done the respective contributions invested by the Claimant in mortgage payments and the amount invested by the Defendant in maintenance and utilities and any other equitable payments due to the Claimant by way, for example, of occupation rent. To that end the Defendant will probably have to spend time and money on getting her full bank statements to show the extent of her investment over the years and the Claimant will have to produce hers to evidence the extent of her contribution to the mortgage payments."
"30. The fact that it was put in joint names of George and the Claimant militates against that intention because it was not necessary to put it in their joint names to secure the mortgage. The loan was secured on the house which they had built in France. The fact that George put the English house in joint names is evidence that he intended his wife to be the joint owner and never made known to her expressly or impliedly that his daughter was to be the sole owner.
31. That would explain the content of the August 2010 letter from the Claimant to the Defendant offering that if the Defendant disclaimed her share of the French inheritance the Claimant would transfer the London house to her alone. That suggests to me that at that time the Claimant was proceeding on the basis that she was not the sole beneficial owner of the London house and that she and the Defendant both had beneficial interests in it. This is contrary to the case pleaded for her that the Defendant had no beneficial interest in the house."
SIR STEPHEN TOMLINSON:
LADY JUSTICE GLOSTER: