The Board considered whether there were only three situations in which joint owners of property could be found to be tenants in common, and whether there were other circumstances which could lead to a contrary conclusion.
Held: It was improbable that a joint tenancy in equity was intended where joint tenants in law held commercial premises for their separate business purposes. The parties may have equal shares without indending survivorship rules to apply. There was no fundamental distinction between buying a lease at a premium with a token rent and taking a lease at a rack rent with no premium. In the latter case the rent is equivalent to the purchase money. The features of the case pointed: ‘unmistakably towards a tenancy in common in equity, and furthermore towards a tenancy in common in unequal shares’. Amongst these were not only that the parties had paid the refundable deposit, stamp duty, survey fees, rent and service charges in unequal shares, but also that those shares were proportionate to the actual square footage which each of them occupied.
Lord Brightman: ‘The lessees at the inception of the lease hold the beneficial interest therein as joint tenants in equity. This will be the case if there are no circumstances which dictate to the contrary.’
Lord Brightman
[1986] 1 AC 549
Cited by:
Cited – Stack v Dowden HL 25-Apr-2007
The parties had cohabited for a long time, in a home bought by Ms Dowden. After the breakdown of the relationship, Mr Stack claimed an equal interest in the second family home, which they had bought in joint names. The House was asked whether, when . .
Cited – Fowler v Barron CA 23-Apr-2008
The parties had lived together for many years but without marrying. The house had been put in joint names, but without specific advice on the issue or any express declaration of trust. In practice Mr Barron made the direct payments for the house and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Trusts, Land
Leading Case
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.251499
