BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) >> Avtar Hayre v Joanna Maria Sajdak (Fraud, forgery, duress and undue influence : Evidence) [2018] UKFTT 447 (PC) (31 July 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/PC/2018/2016_1160.html Cite as: [2018] UKFTT 447 (PC) |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Avtar Hayre v Joanna Maria Sajdak (Fraud, forgery, duress and undue influence : Evidence) [2018] UKFTT 447 (PC) (31 July 2018)
[2018] UKFTT 447 (PC). Respondent-s application to cancel Applicant-s restriction - title registered in Respondent-s sole name. Parties were in a relationship when the house was acquired, and Applicant alleged that it was bought as a home for both of them but put into Respondent-s sole name for the purpose of improving her credit record. Applicant claimed that he had contributed £15,000 to the purchase price and had made substantial contributions to the mortgage repayments and household finances. After the parties had split up, Applicant had signed a -Termination Agreement- agreeing to relinquish any claim to the house in consideration of the return of his deposit contribution. He alleged that this document had been procured by duress or misrepresentation, alternatively that his signature on it had been forged. Held that Applicant had given R £15,000 towards the deposit but this was intended as an outright gift. He had made no mortgage repayments and had grossly exaggerated the extent to which he had made any other contributions to the household. It was further held that there had been no agreement, understanding or common intention that he should have any interest in the property, and that Respondent was the sole purchaser because that reflected the reality. The fact that she was able to obtain a mortgage in her own name demonstrated that she had a sufficient credit record and Applicant-s explanation made no sense. It was also held that he was bound by the Termination Agreement.
A HTML version of this file is not available click here or view below the pdf version : [2018] UKFTT 447 (PC)
