Maxine Charles & Anor v Andre Solomon & Ors

Maxine Charles & Anor v Andre Solomon & Ors

The judge’s findings, supported by evidence of a course of dealing and mutual understanding that each family was entitled to a 50% share, justified the conclusion that the joint tenancy was severed and the property held as tenants in common. The division of rent was not merely a sharing of income but reflected the intention to hold distinct shares, especially after Philma’s death. There was no credible evidence of an informal agreement dispensing with rent sharing, and the duty to account for rent received since 1984 stands.

Parties
Appellant: Maxine Charles; Appellant: Wayne Millington; Respondent: Andre Solomon; Respondent: Wilfred Sylvanus Solomon; Respondent: Jason Orin Lester; Respondent: Carolyn Astrid Louise Solomon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Severance of Joint Tenancy, Beneficial Ownership, Fiduciary Duty, Appeal Procedure, Account of Rents
Property Law Civil Procedure Severance of Joint Tenancy Beneficial Ownership Fiduciary Duty Appeal Procedure Account of Rents

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maxine Charles

Appellant

Wayne Millington

Appellant

Andre Solomon

Respondent

Wilfred Sylvanus Solomon

Respondent

Jason Orin Lester

Respondent

Carolyn Astrid Louise Solomon

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the joint tenancy of 125 King’s Avenue was severed by a course of dealing
  2. 2 Whether an account of rents should be ordered dating back to 1984
  3. 3 Whether there was an informal agreement dispensing with rent sharing

Ratio Decidendi

The judge’s findings, supported by evidence of a course of dealing and mutual understanding that each family was entitled to a 50% share, justified the conclusion that the joint tenancy was severed and the property held as tenants in common. The division of rent was not merely a sharing of income but reflected the intention to hold distinct shares, especially after Philma’s death. There was no credible evidence of an informal agreement dispensing with rent sharing, and the duty to account for rent received since 1984 stands.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused (save for Ground 1, which would have met threshold but appeal dismissed on merits)
  • Extension of time for filing appeal notice granted to 18 June 2024