Miah & Ors v Miah

Beneficial ownership is ordinarily determined from the conveyancing documents. An express declaration of trust satisfying Law of Property Act 1925, section 53(1)(b), is conclusive between the parties unless rectified or rescinded for mistake, fraud, undue influence or a similar vitiating factor. Common-intention constructive trust and resulting trust principles therefore have no application where the declaration comprehensively states the beneficial interests. For investment property, the presumption that equity follows the law does not determine unequal beneficial ownership; the court examines the parties’ agreement and, absent agreement, their contributions. Where a transfer is silent as to beneficial shares, the general presumption applies. An estoppel by convention requires a communicated common assumption on which both parties acted, detriment and unconscionability, and cannot contradict statutory protection or create new rights.

The four claimants, brothers of the defendant, sought declarations concerning the beneficial ownership of numerous properties acquired by members of their family between 1994 and 2017. They also sought accounts of rental income and tracing-based relief in respect of properties registered in the defendant’s sole name or involving third parties.

The dispute concerned the effect of express declarations of trust in transfer documents, the beneficial ownership of a property whose transfer was silent on beneficial shares, alleged constructive or resulting trusts over properties acquired in the defendant’s sole name, proprietary estoppel, estoppel by convention, and accounts of rent.

1. Burden and proof. The claimants bore the legal burden and had to prove their case on the balance of probabilities. Allegations of fraud or dishonesty did not impose a heightened civil standard. The court also confirmed that it need decide only matters necessary to determine the issues and relief.
2. Express declarations of trust. The transfer documents for the Joint Properties, other than 1 Whistlets Close, expressly declared the beneficial interests. Those declarations were conclusive unless vitiated by mistake, fraud, undue influence or similar circumstances. No such case was established. The properties were therefore held in the shares stated in the TR1s. The fact that some declarations were apparently unsigned by all joint proprietors did not invalidate them.
3. 1 Whistlets Close. The transfer was silent as to the beneficial shares. The evidence did not establish a common intention that the property was held solely for Goyas or equally for all five brothers. Applying the general principle that equity follows the law, Anawar and Raza held the beneficial interest in equal shares.
4. Raza’s Properties. The documentary evidence did not support Raza’s assertion that he alone funded the properties registered in his name. The claimants were entitled to beneficial shares corresponding to contributions made from property or income in which they had beneficial interests. The precise shares required an account or inquiry, taking into account credits due to Raza, including mortgage payments and improvements.
5. Estoppel and accounts. Raza failed to establish an estoppel by convention. There was no sufficiently proved communicated common assumption, detriment or unconscionability. He was ordered to account for rent and other payments received from the Joint Properties and, to the extent relevant, Raza’s Properties. The counterclaim was dismissed. Declarations, accounts and consequential payment were ordered, with issues concerning sale, possession, costs and directions left for further hearing.