- Joint ownership—determining the common intention for an investment property (Rowland v Blades)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- Common intention vs resulting trust
- Compensation under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996) vs occupation rent in equity
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Common intention
- Contemporaneous document vs oral evidence
- Compensation vs occupation rent
- Case details
Property analysis: In this case the court considered a claim by a co-owner (CR) who paid for a property which was conveyed into joint names at law with no declaration of trust on the TR1. CR’s application was for a declaration that he was solely beneficially entitled to the property with the other co-owner (SB) having a mere life interest, with remainder to CR’s daughter. He also pleaded a claim for occupation rent of £371,000. Written by Simon Lillington LLM MCIArb, barrister, mediator, family arbitrator at 3 Paper Buildings, Temple, London, who acted for the defendant in this case.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial