Marr v Collie

Where property is conveyed into joint names, the starting point is joint legal and beneficial ownership. That principle is not confined to a family home or purely domestic setting. It may apply where cohabiting partners acquire an investment as part of an emotional and commercial relationship.

The decisive inquiry is the parties’ shared intention, assessed objectively from their words, conduct and whole course of dealing. Unequal contributions may support a resulting trust, but do not automatically determine beneficial ownership. Where intention has not been properly examined, the appropriate appellate course is remittal.

The parties were former cohabiting partners who acquired properties and other assets during their relationship. They disputed their respective beneficial ownership after the relationship ended.

Isaacs J applied resulting-trust principles to the investment properties and other assets. The Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas allowed the appeal in part, treating the investment properties as jointly beneficially owned and directing their sale and a further assessment of contributions. It dismissed the appeal concerning South Westridge and the artwork, and made separate orders concerning the truck and boat.

The Privy Council considered the correct approach to beneficial ownership, the significance of joint legal title and unequal contributions, and whether the Court of Appeal had fairly and properly relied on an email not put to the appellant.

1. Disposition. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court of the Bahamas. The Board held that there was no feasible alternative because the parties’ actual intentions had not been properly examined. The remittal concerned the investment properties, the truck and the boat, and excluded the South Westridge property. The parties were given 28 days to make submissions on costs.
2. Beneficial ownership. The Board applied the principle in Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432 that joint legal ownership starts from joint beneficial ownership. That principle is not confined to purely domestic acquisitions. It may apply where a couple acquire investment property as part of a relationship having both personal and commercial dimensions.
3. Intention and presumptions. The court must determine the parties’ shared intention from their words, conduct and whole course of dealing. Relevant matters include the purpose of acquisition, the nature of the relationship, the reasons for joint title, financing, contributions and subsequent dealings. The resulting-trust solution does not automatically prevail because contributions were unequal, nor does joint title conclusively establish equal beneficial shares. An unambiguous intention to share equally should be given effect; where no relevant intention was formed, a resulting trust may provide the answer. The Board distinguished Laskar v Laskar [2008] EWCA Civ 347; [2008] 1 WLR 2695 as concerning a purely financial family investment without the same personal and commercial context.
4. Errors below. Isaacs J’s bare conclusion that the result would have been the same under the common-intention analysis did not amount to the required examination of intention, particularly in relation to the later joint purchases and the email of 10 March 2005. The Court of Appeal relied critically on that email without giving the appellant an opportunity to comment on it and did not adequately address the trial judge’s credibility findings. In line with Muschinski v Dodds [1985] HCA 78, the remitted hearing also had to determine whether contributions towards acquisition and development should be reflected in the distribution.

1. Privy Council: Appeal allowed and remitted to the Supreme Court of the Bahamas for determination of the parties’ intentions and relevant contributions.
2. Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas: On 29 May 2014, appeal allowed in part. The court ordered sale and division arrangements for the investment properties, truck and boat, while dismissing the appeal concerning South Westridge and the artwork.
3. Supreme Court of the Bahamas: Isaacs J applied resulting-trust principles and found in favour of the appellant concerning the investment properties and other disputed assets.