Stack v Dowden
Where a home is bought in joint names, the starting point is that the beneficial interest is shared equally, and only an unusual case will displace that presumption.
Facts
Mr Stack and Ms Dowden lived together for about 27 years and had four children, although they never married. They bought a house in their joint names, but Ms Dowden contributed much more to the purchase price than Mr Stack, from her savings and the proceeds of an earlier house in her sole name. They kept their finances strictly separate, and Ms Dowden paid most of the outgoings. When they separated, Mr Stack claimed a half share of the house.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that Ms Dowden was entitled to 65 per cent and Mr Stack to 35 per cent. Lady Hale said that, in the domestic context, where a property is in joint names, the starting point is that equity follows the law, so the parties are joint beneficial owners in equal shares, and the burden is on the person who claims otherwise to show that the parties intended their beneficial interests to be different. The court must look at the whole course of dealing between the parties to determine their intentions, and many factors other than financial contributions may be relevant. This was a very unusual case, because the parties had kept their finances strictly separate. Lord Neuberger agreed with the result, but on the basis of a resulting trust.
Related cases on trusts of the family home
- Abbott v Abbott [2007] UKPC 53
- Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317
- Capehorn v Harris [2015] EWCA Civ 955
- Curran v Collins [2015] EWCA Civ 404
- Eves v Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1338
- Fowler v Barron [2008] EWCA Civ 377
- Geary v Rankine [2012] EWCA Civ 555
- Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
