Ketteringham and Another v Hardy: ChD 3 Feb 2011

Two partners had together bought several properties for development, and now disputed the interests in one of them. One partneer had dies, and the refusal of development permission and the fall in property values left the land in negative equity. The court was asked to find that a partnership existed and that the estate was liable to contribute to the losses.
Held: No partnership existed. The matter was to be resolved according to the principles of equitable accounting. The real question to be determined is whether it was the common intention of the parties that Nick Ketteringham would contribute to the liability under the mortgage in the event that the net proceeds of sale were less than the sum outstanding under the mortgage. No such common contention had been expressed, and therefore the estate could not be held liable to contribute.

Behrens J
[2011] EWHC 162 (Ch), [2011] WTLR 1367
Partnership Act 1890 24
England and Wales
CitedClarke v Harlowe ChD 12-Aug-2005
A house was bought in the joint names of the parties. It was in bad condition. An express declaration of trust said they held as beneficial joint tenants. One tenants was earning much more than the other. He paid all the mortgage instalments. Very . .
CitedWilcox v Tait CA 13-Dec-2006
The court considered the principles of equitable accounting as between co-owners of land.
Held: The question of whether there is a liability to account depends on the intention of the parties. Jonathan Parker LJ said: ‘Moreover, it is in any . .
CitedFrench v Styring 8-May-1857
A and B were joint owners of a race horse, and had agreed that A should keep and train and have the general management of the horse, conveying him to and entering him for the different races ; that 35s. per week should be allowed for his keep ; and . .
CitedJaenicke v Schulz 1924
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Equity

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.428427