The High Court has ordered the sale of a disputed property after determining how its beneficial ownership should be divided in proceedings for financial relief following a foreign divorce.
Legal title to the property is held by two adult daughters of the respondent, C.B., from his first marriage. The applicant, A.A., is his second spouse. The court had already ruled that any beneficial interest held by C.B. in the property should be divided 75% to A.A. and 25% to C.B.
The remaining issue was how much beneficial ownership C.B. actually retained.
Ms Justice Nuala Jackson found that the property had been assigned in 1995 to the daughters without them providing the purchase price stated in the deed. That raised a legal presumption that C.B., who had arranged the transfer and provided the consideration, remained the beneficial owner unless that presumption was displaced.
The daughters relied on a 1994 agreement under which C.B. would retain complete control and all benefits from the property during his lifetime, while they would receive the property after his death. Correspondence over later years was inconsistent. At various times C.B. acknowledged their rights, sought to buy them out, threatened to set the arrangement aside and described himself as continuing beneficial owner.
The court said the evidence was too inconsistent to prove an outright gift. However, because the transferees were C.B.’s children, a separate presumption of advancement applied. The court found that this had not been rebutted. It also noted that the daughters had acted to their detriment, including by paying to acquire the freehold.
The court therefore concluded that the daughters held the remainder interest while C.B. retained a life interest.
The property is to be sold by public auction. After debts and sale costs, 75% of the net proceeds will go to the daughters and 25% to C.B. His 25% share will then be divided 75% to A.A. and 25% to C.B. under the earlier order.