Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Wei-Lyn Loh v Ardal Loh-Gronager

[2024] EWFC 241
A wealthy couple had a prenup. The wife bought expensive furniture using money from their joint account. Even though the account was jointly owned, the court said the furniture belonged solely to the wife because the husband didn't directly pay for it, despite the money coming from a joint account. The prenup was clear that only actual contributions mattered for jointly acquired items.

Key Facts

  • Preliminary issue hearing concerning the interpretation of a pre-nuptial agreement (PNA) regarding the ownership of valuable chattels.
  • Chattels purchased during the marriage, in the wife's sole name, using funds from joint accounts.
  • PNA designated joint accounts as 'Joint Property' irrespective of contributions.
  • Wife significantly wealthier than husband.
  • Husband previously a banker, now in an investment partnership largely funded by the wife.
  • Chattels worth several million pounds.

Legal Principles

Interpretation of a pre-nuptial agreement depends on the parties' intentions as expressed in the agreement.

This case

A joint account does not automatically mean that any purchases made from it are jointly owned. The intention behind the use of the joint account needs to be considered.

Re Bishop [1965] Ch. 450; Heseltine [1971] 1 All ER 952

A clear agreement between parties can override any presumption about the ownership of assets purchased from a joint account.

Re Bishop [1965] Ch. 450

Outcomes

The chattels belong to the wife as her separate property.

The court found that although the joint account was 'Joint Property', the use of funds from that account to purchase chattels in the wife's sole name, for a purpose beyond the agreed scope of the joint account (household expenses), did not automatically make the chattels jointly owned. The husband did not make an actual financial contribution to the purchase of the chattels in the relevant period. The PNA's clauses regarding jointly acquired chattels (paragraph 22.4) were interpreted to require an actual financial contribution, not a deemed contribution stemming from the use of a joint account.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.