Lumley v Robinson

Joint debtors ordinarily have a restitutionary right of contribution where one debtor, being liable for the whole debt, pays more than a fair share. A claim against a deceased person’s estate requires careful scrutiny of the surviving claimant’s evidence. Corroboration is desirable but is not a legal prerequisite where the evidence is convincing. The claimant must also establish that repayment was contemplated or is required in equity. After one joint tenant dies and the survivor acquires the entire beneficial interest in the property, the survivor cannot ordinarily recover contribution from the deceased joint tenant’s estate for later mortgage payments. Such recovery requires an agreement or other equitable basis.

Mr Lumley lived with Mrs Riddell for many years in a jointly owned property. After her death, he claimed against her estate for a contribution towards mortgage payments made before and after her death, and also sought provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

The Newcastle-upon-Tyne County Court found that Mr Lumley had paid the relevant mortgage instalments, awarded him £10,700 for payments before death and £1,900 for payments afterwards, and declared the estate liable for half of future instalments. It dismissed the statutory provision claim. The estate appealed on the evidential basis for the pre-death award, the alleged voluntary nature of the payments, the post-death contribution, and costs.

1. Appeal allowed. The orders awarding £10,700 and £1,900, granting a declaration for future instalments, and making the related costs order were set aside. There was no order for costs.
2. Joint and joint and several debtors ordinarily enjoy a restitutionary right of contribution. The claimant must have been liable for the whole debt and must have paid more than his share. The right remains subject to any contrary agreement and to equitable principles.
3. Evidence supporting a claim against a deceased person’s estate must be examined with scrupulous care. The absence of corroboration does not create a rule of law preventing reliance on otherwise convincing evidence. In this case, however, the documents pointed towards Mrs Riddell having paid approximately half the mortgage instalments, and the judge had not adequately addressed that evidence or the need for corroboration.
4. Mr Lumley also failed to establish that, if he had made the payments, Mrs Riddell was expected to repay him. The relationship between the parties and any arrangement concerning repayment had to be determined before treating the payments as recoverable contributions. The court therefore did not need to decide whether the payments were voluntary.
5. The Recorder had wrongly distinguished Cunningham-Reid v Public Trustee [1944] 1 KB 602. Once Mrs Riddell died, the entire beneficial interest in the jointly owned property passed to Mr Lumley. Equity provided no basis for a person with the whole beneficial interest to recover half of later mortgage payments from the deceased joint tenant’s estate, absent an agreement or other equitable principle. The deceased’s share of the debt was reflected in the value of the property passing to the survivor.

• Newcastle-upon-Tyne County Court: The Recorder awarded contributions for mortgage payments made before and after Mrs Riddell’s death, declared liability for future instalments, dismissed the claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, and made costs orders.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal allowed. The relevant paragraphs of the Recorder’s order were set aside and there was no order for costs.