Amin v Amin and others
Chancery Division |
reliance by the respondents; and (iv) the |
belong beneficially to the respondents |
20 |
12 October 2020 |
judge’s finding that the appellant made |
and not to the appellant. |
|
Nugee LJ |
no financial contribution to the purchase |
(2) The appellant contended that the |
o |
[2020] EWHC 2675 (Ch) |
of the property was wrong. |
property was 100% owned by her. The |
|
Held: The appeal was dismissed. |
respondents argued that it belonged |
|
|
[2020] PLSCS 184 |
(1) In establishing a common |
100% to them. There was no suggestion |
|
|
intention constructive trust, the first |
of a fallback case that it was jointly |
z |
Joint ownership – Beneficial interests |
question was whether there was a |
owned. The essential question for the |
|
– Appellant claiming possession of |
common intention, either expressed or |
judge was whether he accepted that the |
|
property registered in sole name – |
inferred. If that was established, there |
respondents’ financial contributions and |
|
Respondents obtaining declaration |
had to be detrimental reliance on the |
other factors were sufficient to displace |
|
that property held on trust for them |
common intention. The parties’ shares |
the presumption that the appellant |
|
– Appellant appealing – Whether judge |
then had to be quantified. A common |
was the sole beneficial as well as legal |
c |
failing to consider common intention of intention could be established either owner. Having decided that they were, parties – Whether sufficient detrimental on the basis of express discussions he did not have to consider precisely reliance by respondents – Appeal between the parties or the parties’ how or when the sons acquired their dismissed conduct, usually by contributions to interests, or what they were.
The appellant was the sole registered |
the purchase price either initially or |
(3) Detrimental reliance was a |
freehold owner of 1 04 Gladstone Park |
by payment of mortgage instalments: |
requirement for a common intention |
Gardens, London NW2. The appellant |
Dobson v Griffey [2018] EWHC 1 117 |
constructive trust. Where a person |
and the (now deceased) first respondent |
(Ch) considered. |
spent money on a property by way of |
were never legally married under English |
Where a family home was bought in |
mortgage payments, it would be readily |
law but, following a Muslim religious |
the joint names of a cohabiting couple |
inferred that they did so because they |
ceremony, regarded themselves as |
who were both responsible for any |
were relying on an understanding that |
husband and wife. They had four children |
mortgage, but without any express |
they had an interest in the property. |
together, including the second and third |
declaration of their beneficial interests, |
Such expenditure would perform |
respondent sons. |
the presumption was that equity |
the twofold function of establishing |
They acquired the property, which was |
followed the law and they were joint |
the common intention and showing |
in poor condition, in 1995 when it was |
tenants both in law and in equity. That |
that the appellant had acted on it. In |
registered in their joint names. However, |
presumption could be displaced by |
the present case, there was sufficient |
they did not move into it. The first |
showing that the parties had a different |
evidence to demonstrate that the judge |
respondent, who was a builder, renovated |
common intention to be deduced |
thought that they had acted to their |
the property and it was then rented out |
objectively from their conduct. The |
detriment in the belief that the property |
to pay the mortgage. |
relevant intention of each party was |
belonged to them. Nothing more was |
In 1999, the property was sold to |
the intention which was reasonably |
required: Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638 |
a cousin for fl 30,000. In 2005 it was |
understood by the other party to be |
considered. |
transferred into the appellant’s sole |
manifested by that party’s words and |
(4) It would be unsafe and unfair |
name for a purchase price of f249,000 |
conduct notwithstanding that he did |
for the appeal court to overturn the |
and the family lived there. In 2007, |
not consciously formulate that intention |
decision of the judge that the appellant |
the appellant moved out. The first |
in his own mind or even acted with |
in fact made no financial contribution. |
respondent remained living there with |
some different intention which he did |
It was for the appellant to demonstrate |
the second and third respondents and |
not communicate to the other party: |
on appeal that the trial judge had erred |
their families. In 2014, the appellant asked |
Jones v Kernott [2012] 1 AC 776 applied. |
in a factual conclusion. In general, that |
the respondents to vacate the property as |
Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886, Oxley v |
could only be done by showing either |
she wished to sell it. |
Hiscock [2004] EWCA Civ 546 and Stack |
that there was no evidence to support |
The appellant started a claim for |
v Dowden [2007] AC 432 considered. |
his conclusion or that his decision was |
possession but the respondents |
In a sole name case, the presumption |
one that no reasonable trial judge could |
counterclaimed for a declaration that she |
was that the sole legal owner was also |
have come to. It was impossible to do |
held the property on trust for them. The |
the sole beneficial owner. In both joint |
that without having regard to all the |
county court upheld the counterclaim |
and sole name cases, what was needed |
evidence before him. It was impossible |
and ordered the appellant to transfer the |
to displace the presumption that |
for an appellate court to recreate the |
property to the respondents. The judge |
equity followed the law was a common |
atmosphere of a trial where the judge |
also dismissed her claim for possession |
intention that the beneficial ownership |
had evidence before him, but the |
and ordered her to pay costs. |
should be something different from the |
appellate court did not have the details |
The appellant appealed contending |
legal ownership. Each case would turn |
of what that evidence was: Fage UK Ltd v |
that: (i) the judge wrongly failed to |
on its own facts. Financial contributions |
Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5 and |
consider whether there was a common |
were relevant but there were many |
Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd |
intention as to the beneficial interest in |
other factors which might enable the |
[2014] UKSC 41 considered. |
the property; (ii) the judge’s conclusion |
court to decide what shares were either |
|
that the second and third respondents |
intended or fair. In this case, on the |
Raj Arumugam (instructed by Hodders Solicitors) appeared for the appellant; Paul Oakley (instructed |
should share in the beneficial interest was |
evidence, the judge was entitled to |
by S G Law Solicitors Ltd, of Ilford) appeared for the |
perverse; (iii) the judge failed to consider |
conclude that the common intention of |
respondents. |
whether there was sufficient detrimental |
the parties was that the property should |
|
No Comments