Raj Kumari Passi & Ors v Roshan Lal Hansrani
[2024] EWHC 2062 (Ch)
AW v RH (Preliminary Issue: Third Party Rights), Re
5 March 2024
[2024] EWFC 54 (B)
Family Court
A wife sued her estranged husband and his family over two houses. The judge decided who really owned each house based on who paid for it and why names were on the deeds. One house belonged entirely to the husband despite his sister also being on the title; the other belonged to the husband's brother. The judge considered the family relationships and the reasons behind the ownership arrangements over time.
Key Facts
- •AW brought a financial claim against RH concerning the ownership of two properties, No. 22 and No. 11.
- •No. 22 was initially owned solely by RH, but in 2009, PT (RH's sibling) was added to the title deeds following a remortgage to fund litigation involving the family.
- •No. 11 was purchased in 1983 with SB (RH's sibling) and RH as legal owners, with SB claiming sole contribution and RH's inclusion for tax benefits.
- •In 2013, RH was removed from the title deeds of No. 11.
- •AW and RH married in 2005 and separated around 2014-2017.
- •The case involved assessing the beneficial ownership of both properties, considering the intentions of the parties involved at various points in time.
Legal Principles
In disputes concerning ownership between a spouse and a third party, strict legal principles relating to trusts over land apply, not the discretionary powers under the Matrimonial Causes Act.
TL v ML & Others [2005] EWHC 2860 (Fam)
The burden of proof lies on the person seeking to show that the parties intended their beneficial interests to be different from their legal interests.
Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17
Many factors beyond financial contributions can determine parties' intentions regarding beneficial ownership, including discussions at the time of transfer, reasons for joint ownership, financing arrangements, and the nature of the relationship.
Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17
Beneficial interests are presumed to follow legal interests unless proven otherwise.
Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17
Outcomes
RH is solely beneficially entitled to No. 22.
PT's addition to the title deeds in 2009 was solely for protection against future claims, not to confer a beneficial interest. PT's own evidence supported this, and the lack of discussion regarding equitable sharing was significant.
SB is solely beneficially entitled to No. 11.
RH's inclusion on the title deeds in 1983 was for tax benefits only, with no contribution to the purchase. The 2013 removal of RH from the title merely regularized the existing beneficial ownership.