Rashid v Munir & Ors

Equitable accounting between co-owners is fact sensitive. Although a co-owner would ordinarily receive a proportionate share of rental profits, the decisive question is the parties’ common intention. The court must determine that intention from the available evidence and surrounding circumstances. An appellate court should not interfere with first-instance findings of credibility unless a proper basis exists for doing so.

The claimant and the defendants were brothers who jointly owned several properties. The first-instance judge found that the claimant held beneficial interests corresponding to his legal title but rejected his claim to a share of commercial rents collected from the properties. The claimant appealed against that refusal, arguing that the evidence established an entitlement to rental payments.

The appeal concerned the proper approach to equitable accounting between co-owners and whether the first-instance judge had applied the correct test in assessing the parties’ common intention.

1. Appeal dismissed. The first-instance judge’s conclusion that the claimant was not entitled to a share of the commercial rents was unassailable.
2. Equitable accounting is fact sensitive and depends substantially on the common intention of the parties. Although a co-owner would normally be entitled to rental profits in proportion to the interest in the property, the ultimate question is the parties’ common intention.
3. The approach in Davis v Vale [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1022 supported treating the assessment of rental receipts and related payments as part of an account determined by the parties’ common intention.
4. The observation in Jones v Jones [1977] 1 W.L.R. 438 concerning rent between tenants in common did not displace the fact-sensitive inquiry. The position differs where there is an ouster or a letting to a stranger.
5. The appellate court was not entitled to revisit the first-instance judge’s rejection of the claimant’s evidence on credibility. The judge had applied the correct legal test and reached a conclusion supported by the limited objective evidence available.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Appeal dismissed from the decision of His Honour Judge Davy QC, who had refused the claimant’s claim to a share of rental payments.