Interest in Property in UK Law

In a case where the legal estate in property is conveyed to two or more persons as joint tenants, but neither the conveyance nor any other written document contains any express declaration of trust concerning the beneficial interests in the property (as would be required for an express declaration of this nature by virtue of section 53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925), the way is open for persons claiming a beneficial interest in it or its proceeds of sale to rely on the doctrine of "resulting, implied or constructive trusts": (see section 53(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925).

It must now be accepted that (at least in this Court and below) the answer is that each is entitled to that share which the court considers fair having regard to the whole course of dealing between them in relation to the property. includes the arrangements which they make from time to time in order to meet the outgoings (for example, mortgage contributions, council tax and utilities, repairs, insurance and housekeeping) which have to be met if they are to live in the property as their home.

I think that similar principles apply as when it is the other way about. The wife does not get a share in the house simply because she cleans the walls or works in the garden or helps her husband with the' painting and decorating. Those are the sort of things which a wife does for the benefit of the family without altering the title to, or interests in, the property. The wife was economical in spending on the housekeeping, as most wives are.

The law has indeed moved on in response to changing social and economic conditions. The search is to ascertain the parties' shared intentions, actual, inferred or imputed, with respect to the property in the light of their whole course of conduct in relation to it.

Even to say that much begs one important question, for it assumes that he has a valid interest in that property: whereas a stay of proceedings on the ground of immunity has normally to be granted or refused at a stage in the action when interests are claimed but not established, and indeed to require him to establish his interest before the Court (which may involve the Court's denial of his claim) is to do the very thing which the general principle requires that our Courts should not do.

Given that no actual common intention to share the property in equal beneficial shares was established, one is driven back to the equitable principle that the shares are presumed to be in proportion to the contributions. If the matter is approached in this way, it seems to me right in principle that the discount of 41% should be regarded as a direct contribution by the woman to the purchase.

So that, in the absence of all evidence, if a husband puts property into his wife's name he intends it to be a gift to her but if he puts it into joint names then (in the absence of all other evidence) the presumption is the same as a joint beneficial tenancy.