CICT - Stack v Dowden (and Jones)

Question 1

why did it take so long for joint legal owner cases to be condiered?

Answer 1

• they would always get a share as joint owners
• so less to fight over
• but these about where they want a different proportion

Question 2

facts of stack v Dowden 2007

Answer 2

• mr and mrs bought house in joint tenancy in law and equity (so 50 each)
• contributions were not equal, barry only paid 35%
• barry self employed builder, tax evasion
• she was well qualified engineer
• kept finances separate
• fight over the proportions

Question 3

baroness hale speech in stack v dowden?

Answer 3

• stack presumption - equitable interest same as legal interests unless exceptional circumstances (so for joint cases always assumed to be half)
• must demonstrate there was a common intention to share in another proportion (look at whole course of dealing with property like in oxley)
• unlike in Oxley they don’t immediately appeal to fairness

Question 4

what was the outcome of stack

Answer 4

mrs dowden given 65% share

(question if it was exceptional circumstances - using old fashioned presution that partners immediately pool their assets together)

Question 5

what did Lord Neuberger say in his dissent of stack?

Answer 5

• starting point istn stack presumption, it should be that the shares reflect the proportion of value put into the property by each person
• but could then rebut this with common intention to share at different proportion

Question 6

What did Hale provide to work out a couples common intention as to the proportions (in stack)?

Answer 6

• multifactorial approach

- list of themes that could indicate the intention

Question 7

what was the criticism of lady hale in stack?

Answer 7

• that two people not getting married and keeping their finances separate is exceptional circumstances
• hales background in family law means its family law dressed up as property law

Question 8

which case too over the loose ends of stack?

(in terms of using common intention rather than express declaration)

(inferences vs actual words)

Answer 8

jones v Kernott 2011

Question 9

why was jones 2011 out of the ordinary?

Answer 9

• first real case that used the little clause in Rosset that said you could look to after the purchase of the property for a common intention

Question 10

facts of the jones case?

Answer 10

Pat jones and mr Kernott purchase house joint, no trust so joint tenancy in law and equity so 50/50

• jones gave 6000 of 30, rest came from joint mortgage
• wasn’t enough evidence to displace stack presumption and it should still be 50/50
• man move out in 93, jones continue to pay mortgage until 2007, jones had put in 90%

Question 11

what was the question for supreme court in Jones and what did they say?

Answer 11

• does CICT respond to a change in intention?
• yes law accepts intention can be determined at a later point

(jones did end up getting the 90%)

Question 12

what did Jones establish about working out intention?

Answer 12

• inferred intention is object, deduced by words uttered and oacts done by parties through the whole course of dealing of the purchase
• it’s not what they actually think, it’s just what a bystander think intention is
  (this is what is used at acquisition stage)
• imputed intention, where they never even thought about it
  (can only be used at quantitative stage along with implied intention)

Question 13

criticism of resulting method from jones?

Answer 13

• jones was fairly clear cut so it worked
• but there have been cases where all money burned through because things like intention too difficult to establish
• is it doing more harm than good?

Question 14

in which dicta case did Hale say the law had moved on from Rosset?

(so that courts for a while though stack had taken over from Rosset in single legal cases too)

Answer 14

Abbott 2007