6 October 2016
Appeal in relation to the interpretation of a completion document in the determination of the beneficial interest in a property under TLATA.
Facts
- The claimant father sought a determination of the beneficial interest in a property as between him and the defendant son.
- The trial judge found that the father had contributed between £87,800 and £100,000 to the property, which amounted to approximately 70% of the equity in the property. She therefore apportioned the beneficial interest 70% in favour of the father and 30% in favour of the son.
- In making her determination she relied on a completion statement. She interpreted it as showing that the father had contributed £87,800 to the purchase price and the son provided the balance of circa £53,000.
- The son was granted permission to appeal on two issues namely,
(1) whether the judge misinterpreted the completion document, and
(2) what difference, if any, that would have made to her determination of the beneficial interest.
Held
- Floyd LJ dismissed the appeal.
- He found that the trial judge had misinterpreted the completion document. The father had contributed a total of £61,000, which amounted to only 44% of the purchase price [20].
- However, he held that this would not have made a difference to the judge’s overall assessment [29]. He emphasized that the exercise is not a mathematical one founded only on the financial contributions to capital at the outset, but on all the circumstances surrounding the dealings between the father and the son [28].
- Although the son had contributed £80,000 via a mortgage on the property, the father had financed that mortgage for many years. Floyd LJ added a figure of £40,000 to £61,000 to reflect this contribution. Therefore the trial judge’s quantification of the beneficial interest at 70% was reasonable [30].
