Ardley Allen v Joan Elizabeth Webster

Ardley Allen v Joan Elizabeth Webster

The judge erred by applying a resulting trust analysis based on mortgage contributions after 1992 rather than focusing on the parties' common intention at the time the Appellant ceased contributions. The proper inference is that the Appellant's interest crystallised in 1992 at half the property's value then (£37,000), not as a percentage of the current value. An order for sale is appropriate unless the Respondent pays the Appellant within three months.

Parties
Appellant: Ardley Allen; Respondent: Joan Elizabeth Webster
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Common Intention Constructive Trusts, Beneficial Ownership, Order for Sale, Severance of Joint Tenancy
Trusts Property Law Common Intention Constructive Trusts Beneficial Ownership Order for Sale Severance of Joint Tenancy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ardley Allen

Appellant

Joan Elizabeth Webster

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge correctly declared the beneficial interests in the property as 92% for the Respondent and 8% for the Appellant
  2. 2 Whether the common intention between the parties changed in 1992
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant's interest should crystallise as a monetary amount as at 1992

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred by applying a resulting trust analysis based on mortgage contributions after 1992 rather than focusing on the parties' common intention at the time the Appellant ceased contributions. The proper inference is that the Appellant's interest crystallised in 1992 at half the property's value then (£37,000), not as a percentage of the current value. An order for sale is appropriate unless the Respondent pays the Appellant within three months.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Declaration that the Appellant's beneficial interest is a fixed sum of £37,000 (plus £438.53) crystallised as at 1992, not a percentage share of the current value.
  • Order for sale of the property unless the Respondent pays the Appellant £37,000 plus £438.53 within three months.