Ratio Decidendi
Where a family home is conveyed into the joint names of cohabitants without an express declaration of trust, equity follows the law and the presumption is that the beneficial interest is held jointly in equal shares. This presumption can be displaced, but only by showing that the parties' common intention at the time of acquisition (or subsequently) was to hold in different shares, and the burden of displacing the presumption is heavy.
حقائق
Ms Dowden and Mr Stack were an unmarried couple who purchased a house together in joint names, with Ms Dowden contributing significantly more to the purchase price and mortgage payments. There was no express declaration of how the beneficial interest was to be held. The relationship broke down and a dispute arose as to the shares in which the property was held.
فیصلے کا خلاصہ
The House of Lords held that Ms Dowden was entitled to a 65% share. Baroness Hale, delivering the leading speech, held that where a property is conveyed into joint names, the starting point is that equity follows the law and the beneficial interest is held jointly (50:50). This presumption can be displaced by evidence of the parties' common intention that they should hold different shares. Relevant factors include financial contributions, how outgoings were shared, and the nature of the parties' relationship and dealings. The burden of displacing the joint ownership presumption is heavy.
اہم اقتباسات
"At least in the domestic consumer context, a conveyance into joint names indicates both legal and beneficial joint tenancy, unless and until the contrary is proved."
— Baroness Hale
"The burden will therefore be on the person seeking to show that the parties did intend their beneficial interests to be different from their legal interests, and in what way."
— Baroness Hale
بعد کا علاج
Followed and developed in Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, where the Supreme Court held that if the common intention cannot be deduced, the court may impute an intention as to shares based on what is fair.