B - Beneficial interest
28/3/24
KENDALL v BALL [2024] EWHC 746 (Ch)
A joint declaration of trust of land in the names of the respondents was not conclusive in a claim by administrators of the applicant company for a declaration that the land was held by the respondents on resulting or constructive trust for the company. The court considered principles for establishing a resulting trust [37] but rejected the claim made on that basis. The court also considered principles on which directors are liable as constructive trustees if they acquire property in breach of duty [53]. On the facts, the claim that the land was held on constructive trust succeeded.
29/8/17
INSOL FUNDING COMPANY LTD v COWLAM [2017] EWHC 1822 (Ch)
The defendants initially intended each other to have equal shares in a property which they purchased in joint names but without any express declaration of trust. As a result of an agreement as to beneficial ownership of the property after its purchase, they were found to hold the property on a constructive trust as tenants in common, with the first defendant having an 80% share and the second defendant 20%. The first defendant’s claims to further rights over the second defendant's share by way of an equity of exoneration and subrogation were dismissed. The first defendant had not been in the position of a guarantor or surety for the liabilities of the second defendant nor had the second defendant been unjustly enriched at the first defendant’s expense.
20/11/12
AKHTAR v HUSSAIN [2012] EWCA Civ 1762
Where a couple each held a 50% beneficial interest in property, the party remaining in occupation was not liable to pay an occupation rent at the full market rate but only half the full market rent, to reflect the fact that he was a 50% co-owner.
9/11/12
PANKHANIA v CHANDEGRA [2012] EWCA Civ 1438
A declaration of trust of land expressly providing for the property to be held as joint tenants in equal shares was conclusive, unless varied by subsequent agreement, affected by proprietary estoppel, or set aside on grounds such as fraud, mistake or undue influence. The declaration could not be challenged as a sham merely because the appearance of one party on the title was a matter of convenience.