Marr v Collie (Bahamas)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Kerr |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] UKPC 17 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No 0050 of 2015 |
| Date | 25 May 2017 |
[2017] UKPC 17
Lord Neuberger
Lady Hale
Lord Kerr
Lord Wilson
Lord Sumption
Appeal No 0050 of 2015
Privy Council
From the Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas
Appellant
Aidan Casey QC
Tom Poole Leroy Smith
(Instructed by Simons Muirhead and Burton)
Respondent
Mark Hubbard
(Instructed by Munroe & Associates)
Heard on 19 December 2016
The appellant, Terry Marr, is a Canadian citizen. He is a banker working in the Bahamas. The respondent, Bryant Collie, is a citizen of the Bahamas. He is a building contractor. Mr Marr and Mr Collie were in a personal relationship with each other between September 1991 and July 2008. During that time, they acquired a number of properties and other items such as works of art, a boat and a truck. This appeal relates to the ownership of the properties and the other items and how they should be disposed of, now that the personal relationship between the two men has ended.
The appellant's statement of claim makes various claims about the circumstances in which various properties were bought. These are summarised in the succeeding paragraphs.
On 30 May 2000, several parcels of land at Dean's Lane, New Providence were acquired in the joint names of the appellant and the respondent. The various parcels of land have become known as the Dean's Lane property. The purchase price was $300,000. This sum was raised by obtaining a loan from Ideal Investments Ltd which took a mortgage over the property. The appellant paid the instalments of interest and capital under the terms of the Dean's Lane mortgage and the fees and taxes in respect of the property. The loan was refinanced by a mortgage taken out on 3 May 2004 with the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC). The appellant claims that this entailed his executing an indenture of mortgage over property in South Westridge of which he was the sole owner. The respondent has admitted that the appellant took out the mortgage but denies that he was the sole owner of the property at South Westridge. The RBC mortgage secured borrowings of $350,000; the appellant claimed that he had paid all sums by way of interest and capital due under the terms of the mortgage. He again paid all bank and legal fees associated with the property.
In his defence and counterclaim the respondent claims that while it was agreed that the appellant would be responsible for paying the instalments of interest and capital under the Dean's Lane mortgage, it was also agreed between them that the respondent would be responsible for all renovation and maintenance of the dilapidated building on the property and for landscaping. He claims that he maintained the property after its purchase. He denied that the RBC mortgage secured borrowings of $350,000 or that the appellant had paid all of the instalments of interest and capital on those borrowings.
A property known as Lot 38, Block 3, Section A in the Rainbow Bay area of Eleuthera was acquired on 2 March 2005. One Jorid O Loehr was the vendor and the appellant and respondent were named in the conveyance as purchasers. The property was conveyed into their joint names. The purchase price was $20,000 and the appellant paid all of this sum himself and all legal, bank and ownership fees associated with the purchase. Another property, Lot 39, in the same section of the Rainbow Bay area, was acquired on 2 November 2006. Again, this was conveyed into the joint names of the appellant and the respondent and again the appellant paid all the fees.
So far as the Rainbow Bay lots were concerned, the respondent did not deny that the appellant had paid all the fees on these but he claimed that it was agreed that he (the respondent) would be solely responsible for building a holiday cottage on these lands and that, to that end, he paid for an architect to survey the lands and draw up plans.
On 14 May 2008 an agreement was made between United Bahamas Development Company Ltd, as vendor, First Caribbean International Bank (Bahamas) Ltd as lender and the appellant and respondent as purchasers. By this agreement, property known as the Hampton Ridge condominium was conveyed into the joint names of the appellant and the respondent. The purchase price of this property was $249,900. An initial down payment of 5% of the purchase price was paid by the appellant. The remainder was financed through a mortgage taken out with RBC on 28 May 2008. The appellant paid all legal fees and bank fees associated with the purchase. He claims to have paid all instalments due on foot of the mortgage and all other incidental fees, apart from two payments made by the respondent in January 2009 and May/June of the same year in respect of insurance. These totalled some $3,000. The appellant further claims to have paid for all the furnishings in this property.
The respondent accepts that it was agreed that the appellant would pay the fees on the Hampton Ridge condominium but claims that it was also agreed that he would be responsible for renovating the building and for furnishings which he duly paid.
A property known as Unit C-53, Town Court Condominiums, Nassau Street, New Providence was conveyed into the joint names of the appellant and the respondent on 19 May 2008. The purchase price was $60,000 and this was paid by the appellant. He also paid all legal and bank fees and claims to have paid all fees associated with the property since the time of its purchase. The respondent accepts that the appellant did in fact pay these fees but says that it had initially been agreed that the parties would pay fees and taxes associated with the Town Court property in equal amounts. The relationship between them deteriorated, however, a few months after the purchase and the respondent was thereafter unable to obtain access to the "documents pertaining to the condominium". In any event, the respondent claims, it was agreed that he should be responsible for all construction works involved in renovating the building and that he removed all cabinets and carpets from it and repaired plumbing and electrical fixtures at his own expense.
In general, the appellant claims that he is entitled to the full beneficial ownership of all the properties, by dint of his having made virtually all payments associated with their purchase. The respondent denies this claim. He says that the properties were acquired in joint names; that the appellant earned more money than he and that the appellant was "the breadwinner" in the relationship.
In 1995 a house was bought in South Westridge by the appellant which, it was intended, would become their joint home. The respondent started to construct a cottage, a swimming pool and a garage to accommodate three cars on this property. He used his own finances and resources to fund this work. He therefore claimed to be entitled to an equitable interest in that property. In his reply and defence to counterclaim the appellant denied that there was any agreement about the purchase or renovation of the house at South Westridge. He asserted that he paid the respondent for the services provided by all labourers and tradesmen who were engaged in the construction of the cottage and that he paid for virtually all the building materials. Any sums expended by the respondent were, the appellant claimed, reimbursed by him.
On 18 June 2007 the appellant bought a Ford Sport Trac Truck for $32,000. It was licensed in the joint names of the appellant and the respondent. In November of the same year he bought a motor boat and trailer. Again the appellant claims that he paid for these but the boat was also registered in the joint names of the appellant and the respondent.
The appellant also claims to be the exclusive owner of various pieces of art, mainly consisting of paintings, drawings and lithographs but also including items of furniture and furnishing. He claims that, in February 2009 or thereabouts, the respondent took them from the properties at South Westridge and Hampton Ridge where they had been kept, and that he has refused to return them.
The respondent claims that the appellant bought the truck as a gift for him but says that it is jointly owned between them. As to the boat, it is disputed that the appellant alone paid for this; the respondent asserts that it was purchased jointly and that it is owned jointly by them. It is claimed that the artwork and the various other objets d'art are also owned jointly.
In the course of a trial before Isaacs J, the parties gave conflicting accounts of their relationship. Mr Marr denied that he was the breadwinner in the sense described by Mr Collie. He claimed that Mr Collie gave repeated assurances that he would make financial contributions but these did not materialise. It was on the strength of the assurances that he agreed to the properties being acquired in joint names. Specifically, he expected Mr Collie to make a contribution equal to that which he had made but that simply did not happen. Mr Marr claimed that Mr Collie carried out minimal renovations to the Town Court property and none at all to the Hampton Ridge unit. As a consequence, these properties, which, it was intended, would be let, did not in fact bring in any rental income. No renovations to the Dean's Lane property took place. It had been intended that this would become a hotel but that fell through because of the lack of work on the building. The result of all this was that considerable sums were owed on the various properties and the property at South Westridge and Dean's Lane were "held by RBC as collateral against the mortgage on the Dean's Lane property".
Mr Marr said that he had bought the South Westridge property in 1995. A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NN v AS and others
...1 FLR 45. Laskar v Laskar[2008] EWCA Civ 347, [2008] 1 WLR 2695, [2008] 2 FLR 589, [2008] 2 P&CR 14, [2008] 2 EGLR 70. Marr v Collie[2017] UKPC 17, [2017] 3 WLR 1507, [2017] 2 FLR 674, [2018] 1 P&CR 5, 20 ITELR 602. Meisels v Lichtman & Ors[2008] EWHC 661 (QB) (9 April 2008, unreported). Me......
-
Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc v Baglan Abdullayevich Zhunus (formerly Baglan Abdullayevich Zhunussov)
...Mayfair limited v Mehta [2000] WTLR 901.” (§ 10–035) 276 The critical question is the parties' actual common intention ( Marr v Collie [2018] AC 631 (PC) §§ 37 and 54–56), which in an appropriate case may be inferred (see the cases discussed at Marr §§ 41–42 and 277 True ownership may be in......
-
Philip John Moody v The Estate of the Late Norman Jones
...see Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, [2012] 1 AC 776 at [31]. This is a principle not limited to domestic properties — see Marr v Collie [2017] UKPC17, [2018] AC 631 at [39] and [49]. c) Applying these principles to the present case, the 50/50 presumption has been displaced by a contrary......
-
Kuddusi Can IL (also known as K Jan IL) v Abdurrezzak Yesilkaya (also known as Abit Yesilkaya)
...names, but also to a sole-name registration. 83 The principles in Stack v Dowden are not limited to domestic contexts, Marr v Collie [2017] UKPC 17, [2018] AC 631, although the relevant intentions must be set against the particular commercial background: Baroness Hale in Stack v Dowden at......
-
"It's My House Not Yours": Separating Unmarried Couples, And The Houses They Own ' The Legal Framework
...by those in a familial relationship/quasi-matrimonial cases, and for an investment, the situation is can be different. From Marr v Colley [2017] UKPC 17, a privy council case, it appears that when the parties are dealing with an investment property purchased by a cohabiting couple in joint ......
-
Lifetime Wealth Transfers and the Equitable Presumptions of Resulting Trust and Gift
...[2007] 2 AC 432 (appeal taken from Eng.). 28. Laskar v. Laskar [2008] EWCA (Civ) 347 [17], [2008] 1 WLR 2695. But cf. Marr v. Collie [2017] UKPC 17, [49], [2017] 3 WLR 1507 (appeal taken from Bah.) (holding that the presumption of resulting trust does not inevitably apply when property is p......
-
Equity and the Law of Trusts in Ireland (7th edition) by Hilary Biehler
...are insightful. 15 Crown Prosecution 3 [2019] IESC 29. 4 [2016] 2 IR 704 (SC). 5 [2017] AC 467. 6 Biehler (n 1) 194. 7 ibid 194–204. 8 [2017] 3 WLR 1507, [2018] AC 631. 9 Hilary Biehler, ‘he Scope of Common Intention Constructive Trusts: Where to Draw the Line?’ (2018) 2 TL 63. 10 [2018] EW......
-
Practical Issues when Taking Instructions and at Execution
...trust, and each party was entitled to the value of her own contribution. The Privy Council took a more nuanced view in Marr v Collie [2017] UKPC 17 holding that where a property was bought in the joint names of a cohabiting couple as an investment, it did not follow inexorably that the ‘res......
-
Equity and Trusts
...32 See, eg, Laskar v Laskar [2008] 1 WLR 2695. 33 Pereira Dennis John Sunny v Faridah bte V Abdul Latiff [2017] 5 SLR 529 at [51]. 34 [2017] 3 WLR 1507. 35 Marr v Collie [2017] 3 WLR 1507 at [40]. 36 [1945] 3 DLR 664. 37 [2012] 2 SLR 831. 38 [2018] 3 SLR 1236. 39 Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistcl......