Stack v. Dowden (Respondent)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant and the Respondent co-habited for many years and had four children. In 1993 they purchased a house in The City in their joint names. The Respondent supplied most of the cash for the purchase while both parties assumed joint liability under the mortgage. No express declaration of trust accompanied the conveyance.

When the relationship ended the Appellant left the property. The Respondent remained in occupation with the children. The Appellant sought (i) an order for sale and (ii) an equal division of the net proceeds, plus a monthly payment to compensate him for being excluded from occupation. The trial judge ordered an equal split and awarded the monthly payment. The Court of Appeal varied that order, deciding that the Respondent was entitled to 65% of the net proceeds, the Appellant 35%, and removed the monthly payment. The Appellant appealed to the House of Lords.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the correct starting presumption when property is conveyed into the joint names of co-habiting partners without an express declaration of trust?
2. What type and quality of evidence is required to rebut that presumption and establish unequal beneficial shares?
3. Did the facts of this case justify departing from equal beneficial ownership, and if so to what extent?
4. Was the Appellant entitled to occupational compensation after leaving the property?

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The majority (Judges Hale, Hope and Walker) held that:

• The correct “starting point” in joint legal ownership is a presumption of joint and equal beneficial ownership.
• That presumption is rebutted where one party proves that the common intention as to beneficial interests differed from the legal title.
• Evidence of unequal financial contributions, coupled with the parties’ clear practice of keeping their finances separate, demonstrated such an intention here.
• The Respondent’s substantially greater cash contribution (and larger share of mortgage capital repayments) justified her receiving 65 % of the net proceeds.
• Factors such as length of relationship, presence of children or pooling of day-to-day outgoings do not by themselves shift the presumption; direct evidence or compelling inference of a different intention is required.
• The Land Registry “receipt clause” is not an express declaration of trust and could not, without further evidence, prove an intention to share equally.
• Occupancy compensation is governed by ss 12–15 Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996; on the facts the majority agreed with the Court of Appeal that no further payments were due.

Judge Neuberger agreed that the appeal on beneficial ownership should be dismissed but dissented on the compensation point, reasoning that fairness and the statutory factors justified continued monthly payments to the Appellant while the Respondent remained in sole occupation.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED.

The House of Lords affirmed that the net proceeds of sale should be divided 65 % to the Respondent and 35 % to the Appellant and that no occupational compensation was payable (majority view).

Implications: the decision clarifies that in joint-name cases the burden lies on the party asserting unequal shares; mere domestic co-habitation factors are insufficient without clear evidence of a different common intention. The ruling provides greater predictability for advisers and emphasises the utility of express declarations of trust in residential conveyancing.