Beresford & Anor v Williamson & Ors

An agreement that property will be shared beneficially may establish a constructive trust or proprietary estoppel where there have been discussions, however informal or imprecise, and the claimant has acted to their detriment in reliance on the arrangement. In a family context, the court may infer the agreement from the evidence as a whole, including the parties’ subsequent conduct. An arrangement that property will be jointly owned and pass by survivorship is treated in equity as an agreement for a beneficial joint tenancy. An appellate challenge to findings based on accepted evidence has no real prospect of success.

The claim concerned the beneficial ownership of a house purchased by the deceased parents of Rachel Beresford. The legal title was placed in the parents’ names, but Rachel and her husband undertook responsibility for the mortgage and related expenditure. The first-instance judge found that the arrangement was that the property would ultimately belong to Rachel and her husband, or to Rachel.

Four of the deceased’s children sought permission to appeal from the Brighton County Court order. The central issue was whether the property devolved on intestacy under section 46(1)(ii) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, or was held beneficially for the claimants under an arrangement made when the property was purchased.

1. Application refused. The proposed appeal had no realistic prospect of success.
2. The applicable principle was that a beneficial-sharing agreement must be established by evidence of discussions between the parties. Once such an agreement is shown, detrimental action or a significant alteration of position in reliance on it may give rise to a constructive trust or proprietary estoppel. The concepts substantially overlap, as explained in Yaxley v Gotts [2000] Ch 162.
3. The first-instance judge was entitled, and in the circumstances bound, to infer that an arrangement existed. The parents could not realistically have purchased the property without an assurance that the mortgage obligations would be met by Mr Beresford. The accepted evidence, viewed as a whole, supported an agreement that the property would ultimately belong to Rachel or Rachel and her husband.
4. Informal family discussions may be sufficient even where memories are imperfect and the terms are imprecise. The trial judge was entitled to assess the witness evidence, including statements that appeared to be weakened in cross-examination, as part of the evidence taken as a whole.
5. An agreement that the property would be jointly owned and continue to be jointly owned on death takes effect in equity as an agreement for a beneficial joint tenancy, with survivorship under section 36 of the Law of Property Act 1925. It was unnecessary to decide whether Mr Beresford was himself intended to take a beneficial interest because he accepted that the whole beneficial interest could be held by his wife.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from the Brighton County Court order was refused. The court held that the proposed appeal had no prospect of success.
• Brighton County Court: His Honour Judge Barratt QC found that the property was held beneficially pursuant to an arrangement made between the parents and the claimants.