Savill v Goodall (1993) 1 FLR 755
In this case, Mrs Goodall was entitled to a 42% discount under a 'right to buy' scheme, the entirety of the remainder of purchase money being raised on a mortgage for which Mr Savill accepted liability to repay. The property was transferred into the joint names of the parties.
Held: On the basis of the express discussions between the parties the beneficial interests should be divided equally, but also accepted that his quid pro quo for being granted a beneficial interest was his agreement to repay the mortgage capital, and costs of redemption. The net proceeds, after repayment of the mortgage by him, was therefore divided equally. The only substantive difference between Springette v Defoe and Savill v Goodall was the absence of any discussion in the former, and it presence in the latter case.
This study area has been created by our experts to help students with Administrative Law Essay and Problem Questions. If you require further help with your question, why not order a fully customised model answer on which to base your assignment? Use our online order form to submit your request and you could have a complete model answer written to your specification within 24 hours.
