Silvester v Sands

The case of Silvester v Sands involved a dispute between a man and a woman who had cohabited for many years and purchased a house in the woman's name. The man was also a borrower under the mortgage securing the property. The woman paid the deposit for the property and both parties pooled their incomes to repay the mortgage and meet expenses. The man made a substantial contribution towards repaying the mortgage, and there was no express declaration of trust regarding the beneficial interests in the property. The central legal issue was whether the woman's beneficial interest in the property was determined by the contributions made by both parties, including the substantial contribution by the man towards the mortgage repayments. Additionally, the court needed to consider the equitable accounting for repairs and improvements, as well as the liability for occupation rent.

The court held that the beneficial interests in the property were to be determined by the contributions made by both parties, including the substantial contribution by the man towards the mortgage repayments. The court noted that the pooling of incomes and the substantial contribution towards the mortgage indicated an intention to share the beneficial interest in the property. The court rejected the argument that there was a presumption of advancement in favour of the woman, given the evidence of pooling of resources and shared intentions. The court also considered the interest of the woman's mother, who was a co-borrower under the mortgage, and determined that her interest did not affect the beneficial interests of the man and woman. The court further held that an equitable accounting was appropriate to determine the respective interests of the parties, and that the man was liable for occupation rent during the period of cohabitation.

The court ordered that the property be sold, and the proceeds be distributed according to the respective beneficial interests of the parties. The court determined that the woman's beneficial interest was 45%, and the man's beneficial interest was 55%, reflecting the contributions made by both parties. The court also ordered an equitable accounting for repairs and improvements made to the property, and determined that the man was liable for occupation rent during the period of cohabitation. The court further ordered that the interest of the woman's mother as a co-borrower under the mortgage be satisfied from the proceeds of the sale.