{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

At law cl there is a preference of jt in the tla s334

Info iconThis preview shows pages 12–14. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
At law (CL) there is a preference of JT in the TLA (s33(4) and s30(2)). Where 2 or more people are named in an instrument to be registered (transfer of title) those people shall be entitled jointly. If 2 or more people are registered as joint proprietors they are deemed JTs. Presumption can be rebutted by words of severance, a missing unity. (Courts only need a slight ground to displace the presumption). Equity: 1. if TIC at law, presumed TIC in equity (follows the law). 2. but if a JT at law, not necessarily JT in equity… 12
Background image of page 12

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
4 circumstances where equity presumes TIC from the start i. Unequal contributions to the purchase price (equity presumes a resulting trust). Lake v Gibson . If one holds legal title and another contributes to the purchase price equity will presume TIC. o Can rebut if there is evidence of marriage. In marriage unequal contributions are not significant. o If the parties both contribute to the purchase price and they hold at law as JTs equity will follow the law and presume that they are also JTs in equity. This result may also follow where they contribute unequal amount to the purchase price. Normally you would have a TIC in equity. ii. People advance money pursuant to a mortgage together – equity presumes that 2 or more people advance money secured by a mortgage, equity presumes that they hold those mortgage interests as TIC. iii. In the case of business partners the right of survivorship is inappropriate. It will be presumed that a TIC exists. Lake v Craddock – partners invested money together. Undertaken a venture with a view to profit. iv. “Flexible approach” – a TIC is presumed if you hold it for your separate business purposes. Melayen Credit v Jack Sheer Facts: 2 parties were tenants for a 5 year lease. Had both names on it. Decided that they would place partition walls. Agreed to pay the deposit rent in the proportions of 38% and 62%. They were running two separate businesses from the rented premises. Held: At law they are JTs. They are named on the lease and no words of severance. But, the lords rejected the view that the presumption is limited to 3 categories. Where premises are held by 2 persons as JTs at law for their several business purposes, it is improbable that they intend to hold their JTs in equity. The purpose of the lease was clearly to serve separate business interests, space was planned for division, contributed different proportions. Bedejs v Public Trustee Facts: De factos living together for 14 years. Land in his name. He dies and did not leave a will – died in testate. She argued that they had been pooling their incomes and paying expenses and repayments together. Although the contributions were unequal. Held: Nicholson J held that there was a CICT. CI to acquire the land on behalf
Background image of page 13
Image of page 14
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page12 / 47

At law CL there is a preference of JT in the TLA s334 and...

This preview shows document pages 12 - 14. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online