Ann Nilsson & Anor v Collette Cynberg
[2024] EWHC 2164 (Ch)
Ardley Allen v Joan Elizabeth Webster
29 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 988 (Ch)
High Court
Two people jointly owned a house. One moved out and stopped paying. A judge decided the person who stayed got most of the house based on who paid the mortgage later. A higher court said this was wrong, that the share should be based on what was agreed when the first person left, giving the other person around 6% of the house's current value, and ordering a sale if the person who stayed doesn't pay them out.
Key Facts
- •Property at Tyndale Villas, London, purchased jointly by Appellant and Respondent in 1988 as joint tenants.
- •Appellant moved out in 1990, ceased contributing financially in 1992.
- •Respondent continued mortgage payments and some maintenance.
- •Recorder Maguire awarded 92% beneficial interest to Respondent, 8% to Appellant.
- •Appellant appealed on five grounds.
Legal Principles
In cases of jointly owned property where the question is what the parties' interests are and whether they have changed, the court will try to deduce their actual intentions at the relevant time. If it cannot deduce the exact shares intended, it may ask what their intentions as reasonable and just people would have been.
Jones v. Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 at [47]
Starting point is equity follows the law (joint tenants in law and equity). This presumption can be displaced by showing a different common intention at the time of acquisition or a later change of common intention. Common intention must be deduced objectively from conduct.
Jones v. Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 at [51]
Section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 regarding orders for sale; relevant factors in section 15.
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, sections 14 & 15
Outcomes
Appeal on Ground 1 (no change of common intention) dismissed.
Judge's findings on change of common intention in 1992 were within reasonable bounds, supported by cessation of Appellant's contributions and Respondent's sole contributions thereafter.
Appeal on Ground 2 (calculation of Appellant's interest) partially successful.
Court rejected a resulting trust analysis based on post-1992 contributions. Appellant's interest crystallised in 1992 at 50% of the property's value at that time, estimated at £37,000 (based on a similar value to 1988).
Appeal on Ground 3 (order for sale) successful.
Court ordered sale of the property unless Respondent pays Appellant £37,000 + £438.53 within three months.
Ground 4 (regarding a £438.53 payment) not appealed and included in the final calculation.
The existing order was maintained and the sum was added to the Appellant's due payment.
Ground 5 (costs) to be determined separately.
Costs were deferred to allow argument from both parties after the main judgement.
Similar Cases
Arvindar Singh (as trustee in bankruptcy of Mrs Angela Garcha) v Angela Garcha & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1844 (Ch)
DDR v BDR (Financial Remedies, Beneficial Ownership and Insolvency)
[2024] EWFC 278
AW v RH (Preliminary Issue: Third Party Rights), Re
[2024] EWFC 54 (B)
Duncan McNiven v Isla Jane McNiven & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1840 (Ch)