HEADNOTE(判決提要): The daughter of a resident in Trinidad was employed at a satisfactory salary with pension rights at the Indian embassy in Washington in the United States. Although she said she was unwilling to leave, she accepted an offer made by her mother in August 1962 that if she would go to England and read for the Bar with a view to practising as a lawyer in Trindad, the mother would provide maintenance for her at the rate of $200 a month (West Indian dollars meant, equivalent to ￡ 42 a month, the daughter expected United States dollars equivalent to ￡ 70, but she in fact accepted the ￡42). The daughter went to England in November 1962 and entered on her studies at the Bar, her fees and maintenance at the offered rate being paid by her mother. But no terms of the arrangements were recorded in writing and no statement of the parties' respective obligations and in particular nothing as to the duration of the arrangement.Following discomfort of the daughter in her accommodation, a proposal was made by the mother in 1964 that she should buy a house of some size in London in a room or rooms of which the daughter could reside with her son (she was divorced from her husband) the rents from letting other rooms furnished to provide maintenance in place of the ￡ 42 a month. A house was bought for ￡ 6,000 and conveyed to the mother, who provided the money in several sums though not all that for incidental expenses and furniture. The daughter was given a power of attorney by the mother and she moved in during January 1965, tenants beginning to arrive in the next month. Again there was no written arrangement and incidental matters remained unsettled such as the application of the rents received and what rooms the daughter should occupy. No money from the rents was received by the mother, nor was sh supplied with any accounts. In 1967 the mother issued a summons claiming possession of the house from the daughter, who counterclaimed for ￡1,655 18s. 9d. said to have been paid in respect of the house. At the hearing some of Part 1 of the Bar examination remained to be taken by the daughter and also the whole of Part 2 (the final). Held: the mother was entitled to possession of the house as the owner as against the daughter who had no legal interest in it, on the following grounds-- DISPOSITION: Appeal allowed. Order for possession by mother on or before 1st March 1969. Reference of quantum of counterclaim to registrar to stand. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused. 在提要的部分就有點不清楚到底女兒和媽媽付房子錢的比例誰多誰少? 然後判決的Appeal allowed.意思是? --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.121.193.82 ※ 編輯: B95730101 來自: 140.121.193.82 (04/28 21:16)