Christopher Alan Rowland v Sharon Margaret Blades
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Master Hansen |
| Judgment Date | 12 March 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 426 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: PT-2019-000423 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 12 March 2021 |
[2021] EWHC 426 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
PROPERTY, TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (ChD)
Royal Courts of Justice
Rolls Building,
Fetter Lane
London, EC4A 1NL
DEPUTY Master Hansen
Case No: PT-2019-000423
Mr Paul Dipré (instructed on Direct Access) for the Claimant
Mr Thomas Roe QC AND Mr Simon Lillington (instructed on Direct Access) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 8–12 February 2021
This is my judgment on the trial of a claim under CPR Part 8 issued on 27 May 2019 for declaratory relief as to the beneficial interests in a large country house known as Tadmarton House, Lower Tadmarton, near Banbury in Oxfordshire (“the Property”).
On 31 March 2009 the Claimant (“Dr Rowland”) and the Defendant (“Ms Blades”), then an unmarried couple in their 50s, caused the Property to be conveyed into their joint names with no declaration of trust. They used it as a holiday and weekend home. The price was £1,550,000. Dr Rowland paid the whole of the purchase price and all the other costs associated with the acquisition. Not long afterwards, the relationship began to break down when Dr Rowland formed a liaison with another woman (“the new partner”).
Dr Rowland contends that he and Ms Blades acquired the Property on the basis that it was to be entirely his in equity, or alternatively, that the property later became entirely, or mostly, his in equity. Although the relationship broke down in the latter part of 2009, there were times thereafter when the parties' relationship was partially rekindled and there were occasions when they both spent time at the Property together, but primarily it was Ms Blades who continued to use the Property from late 2009 until 2018. On that basis Dr Rowland also claims an occupation rent from Ms Blades. Ms Blades maintains that the parties intended to create and to maintain a beneficial joint tenancy and that there is no basis for the imposition of an occupation rent.
The Factual Background
In setting out the factual background, I propose, at this stage, to recite the facts that are either uncontroversial or are incontrovertible in the light of the contemporaneous documents. That said, there is, as one might expect, a significant dispute as to what was said by the parties to one another, and indeed to the conveyancing solicitors, in the run-up to the purchase about the ownership of the Property and thus a stark conflict as to the central issue of common intention and/or the inferences that should be drawn as to what the parties' common intention was. I shall of course have to resolve that conflict and make appropriate findings of fact, but for the moment I propose to set out the facts in a neutral way, particular as the documents (to a large extent) speak for themselves.
Dr Rowland and Ms Blades began their relationship in 2006. At the time Dr Rowland was separated, with one daughter, Hanna. Ms Blades was divorced with no children. Dr Rowland was in his 50s, having been born on 13.3.55. Ms Blades was in her late 40s having been born on 10.6.57. Both had properties of their own. Dr Rowland had a flat in West London (“the Flat”) and Ms Blades owned a property in Wooburn Green (“Wooburn Green”) in Buckinghamshire. Both maintained separate bank accounts and they never pooled their resources.
Both Dr Rowland and Ms Blades are intelligent, professional people. Dr Rowland has a PhD in economics and was working at the material time as a financial analyst. Ms Blades has worked for many years at a senior level in the semiconductor industry.
Dr Rowland was a wealthy man at the material time. In the tax year 08/09, his earnings from employment were £1,176,255. In the subsequent tax year 09/10 he earned £757,660. His earnings for previous tax years were lower but still significant: £428,383 (05/06), £232,377 (06/07) and £360,160 (07/08).
The parties agree that in the latter part of 2008 they decided to buy a house in the country “ at which to go and stay to enjoy their free time”. The property that they eventually resolved to buy was a 3-storey country house with 9 bedrooms and a considerable amount of land. It was described in the estate agents' particulars as “ a distinguished, fully restored Grade II listed Italianate villa” with 24 acres.
On 26.2.09, Dr Rowland and Ms Blades completed a Form of Authority, which they both signed, in which they instructed Bower & Bailey (“B & B”), solicitors, to act for them in the purchase of the Property. On the same date, they completed and signed a number of forms which had been sent to them by B & B.
The first form was a Buyers Questionnaire. One of the questions was, “ Is this an Investment Purchase or are you going to live in the property?” to which the available answers on the form were “ This is an investment purchase” and “ I will be living at the property”. The box which said “ I will be living at the property” was marked with an “x”.
The second form was a document entitled “ Joint Ownership of Property”. Under that heading the clients were identified as “ Dr Chris Rowland and Ms Sharon Blades”. The document explained that:
“If you are proposing to purchase a property in two or more names then it is important that you understand the different types of joint ownership available”.
The document then purported to explain joint tenancy and tenancy in common. Under the heading, “ Joint Tenants”, the document explained that:
“If you hold the property as JOINT TENANTS you are each entitled to share equally in the net proceeds of sale (being the proceeds of sale less repayment of any mortgages, agents and legal fees etc.). If one of you dies then the survivor will automatically become the owner of the whole of the property. This is regardless of whether the deceased owner has or has not made a will.”
Under the heading “ Tenants In Common”, the document explained that:
“If the property is held as TENANTS IN COMMON then it is possible for you to define each owners exact share of the net proceeds of sale (as referred to above). For example, unless you contributed equally to the purchase monies … the person paying or contributing the largest share of the purchase monies may wish to ensure that when the property is sold they are entitled to receive a larger share of the monies remaining (after repayment of the mortgage, etc) than the other joint owner. If you do wish to own the net proceeds of sale in the property in unequal shares then this will need to be recorded in a separate document known as a Declaration of Trust.”
The document concluded by stating:
“Please consider the above quite carefully and then indicate your choice of joint ownership by circling the appropriate paragraph below. If you wish to own the property in accordance with paragraph C then please telephone us to discuss your requirements in more so that we can draft the appropriate Declaration of Trust (as referred to above) for you.”
The available options at the bottom of the form were:
A. Joint Tenants
B. Tenants in Common in Equal Shares
C. Tenants in Common in Unequal Shares.
Option A was circled and the document was signed by both parties and dated 26.2.09.
In an email dated 27.2.09 Dr Rowland explained to Mr Palmer, the conveyancing solicitor at B & B, that:
“… our intention is to purchase Tadmarton House as Joint Tenants and will forward the signed joint ownership form by post”.
On 28.2.09 Dr Rowland sent back the signed joint ownership form by post to Mr Palmer of B & B and B & B then began the conveyancing process.
On 23 March 2019 Dr Rowland emailed Mr Palmer, copied to Ms Blades to say that:
“We've now moved enough funds to cover a 10% deposit (surprisingly, money had moved into the liquid account quicker than we had realised). It's coming from a Halifax account in my sole name.”
It is common ground that the vendors were in a rush to exchange and complete and were insisting on exchange on 23.3.09 and completion on 31.3.09. A meeting at B & B's offices was scheduled for 23.3.09. The parties were running late. It is common ground that the meeting began at about 6pm and lasted about 1 1/4 hours. It is also common ground that the vast majority of the time (c. 80%) was devoted to discussing matters of title, boundaries, building control and the like.
Mr Palmer made an attendance note of this meeting, the material part of which reads as follows:
“SP [i.e. Mr Palmer] discussing joint ownership. Clients had confirmed in initial instructions they wish to own as joint tenants. SP re-explaining difference between joint tenants and tenants in common. Discussion about merits of a declaration of trust. Both clients confirming that they were happy to proceed as joint tenants and do not require decl of trust. SP asking them to give further consideration. Clients agreeing to own as joint tenants but if there was a change of mind they would let SP know before completion.
Sharon Blades needs a will. SP to ask Brit to get in contact.”
I shall of course return to what was discussed at this meeting because there is an important conflict of evidence. Dr Rowland said he mentioned his daughter, Hanna, and made it clear that the common intention was for the Property to be owned ultimately by his daughter but for Ms Blades to have a right to live in it if Dr Rowland predeceased Ms Blades. Both Ms Blades and Mr Palmer firmly deny that there was any such discussion. Returning, for the moment, to uncontroversial matters, it is common ground that the attendance note records the fact that mention was made of the fact that “Sharon Blades needs a will” and it is apparent from the conveyancing file that Mr Palmer asked his colleague Brit to get in touch with Ms Blades about a will on 24.3.09. However, there is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bettini & Britto Ltd v Dawn Run Ltd
...jurisprudence and does not depart unnecessarily from legal principles. Stack v Dowden [2009] EWHC 782 (Ch) applied; Rowland v Blades [2021] EWHC 426 (Ch) applied. Appearances: Mr. Dane Hamilton, KC with him Mr. Dane Elliot-Hamilton for the Mrs. Andrea Roberts-Nicholas and Ms. C. Kamilah R......
-
Bettini & Britto Ltd v Dawn Run Ltd
...jurisprudence and does not depart unnecessarily from legal principles. Stack v Dowden [2009] EWHC 782 (Ch) applied; Rowland v Blades [2021] EWHC 426 (Ch) applied. Appearances: Mr. Dane Hamilton, KC with him Mr. Dane Elliot-Hamilton for the Mrs. Andrea Roberts-Nicholas and Ms. C. Kamilah R......
-
"It's My House Not Yours": Separating Unmarried Couples, And The Houses They Own ' The Legal Framework
...the court inferred that one party would only get 10% of the beneficial interest after separation. More recently, in Rowland v Blades [2021] EWHC 426 (Ch), the High Court considered and applied the principles of Stack v Dowden. In that case the unmarried couple, who are now separated, held a......