Akinola v Oyadare & Anor

In a single-name property case, the claimant must first establish that the parties had a shared intention that the claimant should have any beneficial interest. The court determines that issue objectively from the parties’ words and conduct. There is no presumption of joint beneficial ownership. Where property was acquired as an investment rather than a home, the burden is particularly difficult to discharge. A resulting trust requires a direct financial contribution. The court must identify an actual shared intention; it cannot impute an intention to create an interest where no shared intention to share existed. A compromise offer is not contractually effective unless offer and acceptance correspond. A proprietary estoppel claim requires an unequivocal representation, detrimental reliance and unconscionability.

The claimant sought declarations of beneficial ownership in a portfolio of English properties belonging to the estate of Medinat Bola Adepoju, together with alternative claims based on a later contract and proprietary estoppel. The properties were registered in the deceased’s sole name. The claimant alleged a common intention constructive trust, a resulting trust based on financial contributions, and a 25% interest arising from an offer made by the estate administrator after the deceased’s death.

The court determined preliminary issues ordered in two connected claims. The central questions were whether the claimant had any beneficial interest in the properties or sale proceeds, whether the administrator’s correspondence created a binding compromise, and whether the claimant had relied detrimentally on any representation.

1. Beneficial ownership. The claimant failed to establish any beneficial interest. For the investment properties, the applicable approach was that stated by Lewison LJ in Geary v Rankine [2010] EWCA Civ 555: the claimant had to show first that the parties actually shared an intention that the claimant should have any beneficial interest, assessed objectively from their conduct. There was no presumption of joint beneficial ownership. The court found that the deceased positively did not intend the claimant to have an interest.
2. The stricter approach for investment property did not apply to the property bought as a home. The approach in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 was therefore relevant to that property. It nevertheless produced the same result because no shared intention to confer a beneficial interest could be inferred.
3. No resulting trust arose. The claimant had made no direct financial contribution to any acquisition. His later management, maintenance and administrative work did not establish a proprietary interest.
4. Contract. The administrator’s correspondence was an offer to compromise the claimant’s claims. The purported acceptances did not correspond with the terms offered, particularly as to whether the 25% related to the whole estate or the net value of the properties. No contract was formed. The court did not need to determine whether the administrator had authority to make the initial offer before the grant of letters of administration.
5. Proprietary estoppel. The correspondence contained no unequivocal promise that the claimant would receive an interest. His rent-collection work was undertaken for a stated reasonable fee, and there was no evidence of loss of other work or other detriment. The estoppel claim therefore failed.
6. The claimant had no beneficial interest in any property or sale proceeds and had no additional claim arising from the post-death correspondence. The Part 7 and Part 8 claims were dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs, subject to detailed assessment, with payments on account.

Not an appeal. The judgment determined preliminary issues in connected Part 7 and Part 8 claims. The Part 7 and Part 8 claims were dismissed consequentially.