The deceased and defendant had been partners and friends. They had bought a property expressly for the partnership and was conveyed into their names as joint tenants.
Held: The declaration in the partnership was not itself sufficient cogent evidence that the partners had agreed a beneficial joint tenancy, but that with the nature of the partnership did support such an intention. The solicitor had taken pains to make the consequences clear to the partners. There was a possibility that the transfer had not in fact been executed by the partners. ‘Ultimately there is no inconsistency between a beneficial joint tenancy and partnership property: the only inconsistency is between the rule of survivorship and the presumption that partnership property is held in common. Ultimately, however, contrary agreement prevails. No case of severance has been made. ‘
Judges:
Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Jacob
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 411
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Barton v Morris 1985
A couple lived together as man and wife and bought a property for use as a guest house business to be run as a partnership. The conveyance executed by both of them included an express declaration that they held the property upon trust for themselves . .
Cited – Jackson v Jackson 4-Jul-1804
A testator left his business and land to his two sons jointly to carry on that business after his death. They did so as partners. One issue was whether in doing so they severed the joint tenancy in the land, which was accessory to the business. Lord . .
Cited – Brown v Oakshot 1857
A father devised his estate to trustees for a term, for them to pay a residue of rents from that estate to his sons as tenants in common; but the reversion of the estate he devised to his sons as joint tenants. The question was whether the joint . .
Cited – Barton v Morris 1985
A couple lived together as man and wife and bought a property for use as a guest house business to be run as a partnership. The conveyance executed by both of them included an express declaration that they held the property upon trust for themselves . .
Cited – Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195027