Barnes v Phillips [2015]
Share
Barnes v Phillips [2015] EWCA Civ 1056 addressed the issue of beneficial ownership in the context of an unmarried couple's property. The case involved considerations of contributions, changes in intention, and the imputation of shares based on fairness.
The couple lived together since 1989, had two children together, and purchased the property in 1996 as tenants in common with equal shares. The man contributed to the mortgage and some bills, while the woman covered the remainder. Both made contributions to major works on the property. The man also purchased other properties in his sole name. Financial problems led to remortgaging, and when the relationship broke down, the woman took sole responsibility for mortgage payments and child support. The property, valued at approximately £497,500, became the subject of legal proceedings under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.
The trial judge determined that the parties initially intended to hold the property as joint tenants with equal shares. Due to the absence of direct evidence indicating a later change in intention, the judge imputed their intention on the basis of fairness. Consequently, he assigned 85% of the beneficial interest to the woman and 15% to the man.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the trial judge's use of the term "impute" was deliberate, referencing the second stage of the process outlined in Jones v Kernott [2011]. While the judgment lacked a clear consideration of the first stage (inferring a common intention to change shares), the detailed referencing of Jones v Kernott made it strongly arguable that the judge inferred such a common intention. The Court of Appeal held that it was open to them to infer a common intention based on the evidence. The judge's finding of the shares was not deemed erroneous, and he was justified in considering the man's lack of child support payments.
Barnes v Phillips underscores the court's discretion to impute intention in cases of changing shares, emphasising fairness and considering the evidence. The case aligns with the principles established in Jones v Kernott, illustrating the two-stage process of inferring and imputing intention to determine beneficial ownership in the absence of express agreements. The decision highlights the court's role in assessing fairness and making imputations based on the overall circumstances, especially in unmarried cohabitant cases where intentions may evolve over time.
The couple lived together since 1989, had two children together, and purchased the property in 1996 as tenants in common with equal shares. The man contributed to the mortgage and some bills, while the woman covered the remainder. Both made contributions to major works on the property. The man also purchased other properties in his sole name. Financial problems led to remortgaging, and when the relationship broke down, the woman took sole responsibility for mortgage payments and child support. The property, valued at approximately £497,500, became the subject of legal proceedings under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.
The trial judge determined that the parties initially intended to hold the property as joint tenants with equal shares. Due to the absence of direct evidence indicating a later change in intention, the judge imputed their intention on the basis of fairness. Consequently, he assigned 85% of the beneficial interest to the woman and 15% to the man.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the trial judge's use of the term "impute" was deliberate, referencing the second stage of the process outlined in Jones v Kernott [2011]. While the judgment lacked a clear consideration of the first stage (inferring a common intention to change shares), the detailed referencing of Jones v Kernott made it strongly arguable that the judge inferred such a common intention. The Court of Appeal held that it was open to them to infer a common intention based on the evidence. The judge's finding of the shares was not deemed erroneous, and he was justified in considering the man's lack of child support payments.
Barnes v Phillips underscores the court's discretion to impute intention in cases of changing shares, emphasising fairness and considering the evidence. The case aligns with the principles established in Jones v Kernott, illustrating the two-stage process of inferring and imputing intention to determine beneficial ownership in the absence of express agreements. The decision highlights the court's role in assessing fairness and making imputations based on the overall circumstances, especially in unmarried cohabitant cases where intentions may evolve over time.
