Bedson v Bedson [1965]
Share
Bedson v Bedson [1965] 2 QB 666 revolved around joint tenancy, severance, and the entitlement to equitable shares in a matrimonial home.
A husband and wife, along with their three children, lived in a flat above a draper's shop as joint tenants. The husband solely owned and operated the draper's shop, paying his wife a weekly wage for her employment in the shop. Following a breakdown in their relationship, the wife left with the children, leaving the husband in the flat above the shop. The wife applied to the court for an order for sale and a division of the proceeds based on their equitable interests in the property.
The key issues were whether it was possible to sever the joint tenancy of a matrimonial home used as a dwelling, and whether an order for sale should be granted, resulting in the proceeds being split between the husband and wife based on their equitable interests.
The Court of Appeal decided not to make an order for sale because doing so would deprive the husband of his business and income. Despite refusing the order for sale, the court recognised that the joint tenancy had been severed. The resulting form of ownership was a beneficial tenancy in common between the husband and wife.
Upon severance, each party was entitled to a proportionate share of the property, dependent on the number of joint tenants. In this case, with two joint tenants upon severance, each was entitled to a half-share in the property. To acknowledge this interest, the husband agreed to pay the wife a weekly sum as a result of her interest in the property.
This case illustrates the court's approach to balancing the interests of joint tenants in a matrimonial home. While refusing an order for sale to protect the husband's business, the court recognised the severance of the joint tenancy and established a beneficial tenancy in common, ensuring each party received a proportionate share in the property.
A husband and wife, along with their three children, lived in a flat above a draper's shop as joint tenants. The husband solely owned and operated the draper's shop, paying his wife a weekly wage for her employment in the shop. Following a breakdown in their relationship, the wife left with the children, leaving the husband in the flat above the shop. The wife applied to the court for an order for sale and a division of the proceeds based on their equitable interests in the property.
The key issues were whether it was possible to sever the joint tenancy of a matrimonial home used as a dwelling, and whether an order for sale should be granted, resulting in the proceeds being split between the husband and wife based on their equitable interests.
The Court of Appeal decided not to make an order for sale because doing so would deprive the husband of his business and income. Despite refusing the order for sale, the court recognised that the joint tenancy had been severed. The resulting form of ownership was a beneficial tenancy in common between the husband and wife.
Upon severance, each party was entitled to a proportionate share of the property, dependent on the number of joint tenants. In this case, with two joint tenants upon severance, each was entitled to a half-share in the property. To acknowledge this interest, the husband agreed to pay the wife a weekly sum as a result of her interest in the property.
This case illustrates the court's approach to balancing the interests of joint tenants in a matrimonial home. While refusing an order for sale to protect the husband's business, the court recognised the severance of the joint tenancy and established a beneficial tenancy in common, ensuring each party received a proportionate share in the property.
