Oxley v Hiscock
Where there is no evidence of an agreed share, each party is entitled to the share the court considers fair, having regard to the whole course of dealing between them.
Facts
Mrs Oxley and Mr Hiscock lived together. They bought a house in Mr Hiscock's sole name, with money from the sale of a house owned by Mrs Oxley, money from Mr Hiscock's savings, and a mortgage. Mr Hiscock contributed more than Mrs Oxley to the purchase price, and both contributed to the mortgage and improvements. They never discussed the size of their shares. When they separated, Mrs Oxley claimed a half share.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Oxley was entitled to a 40 per cent share. Chadwick LJ said that, where there is evidence that the parties intended to share the property, but no evidence of any discussion about the size of their shares, each is entitled to the share which the court considers fair, having regard to the whole course of dealing between them in relation to the property. This includes their financial contributions and their contributions to the household. The approach was considered in Stack v Dowden, which put more emphasis on the parties' intentions.
Related cases on trusts of the family home
- Abbott v Abbott [2007] UKPC 53
- Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317
- Capehorn v Harris [2015] EWCA Civ 955
- Curran v Collins [2015] EWCA Civ 404
- Eves v Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1338
- Fowler v Barron [2008] EWCA Civ 377
- Geary v Rankine [2012] EWCA Civ 555
- Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
