Holiday homes: measuring loss of amenity when one joint owner excludes the other

In Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, the Supreme Court determined that when one joint beneficial owner of property excludes the other from the jointly owned property, regard must be had to the criteria set out in sections 12 to 15 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 when assessing the compensation payable to the excluded beneficiary. In Rowland v Blades [2021] EWHC 2928 (Ch); [2021] PLSCS 185, the High Court was asked to determine the level of compensation that a beneficiary who had been excluded from the holiday home he owned jointly with his former partner should receive in circumstances where he had not suffered any financial loss. The appellant and the respondent were an unmarried couple who had been in a relationship that ended in 2009. Shortly before the breakdown of their relationship, the parties purchased Tadmarton House, a stately home situated in Banbury, Oxfordshire. The appellant and the respondent had intended to use the property as a holiday and weekend home where they could spend time together. The purchase monies for the property and associated costs were paid for by the appellant. The respondent contributed towards the property’s maintenance. The parties did not execute a declaration of trust setting out their respective beneficial interests in the property. The appellant argued that he held the entirety of the beneficial interest. The appellant argued that they were joint tenants in equity. At first instance, the deputy master found for the respondent on this issue. The deputy master further found that following the end of the parties’ relationship, the respondent had asked the appellant not to bring his new partner to the property during the weekends and the appellant had agreed. The respondent had effectively excluded the appellant from the property between 1 November 2009 and 31 October 2015 for three days per week. Having regard to the Act, the court found that the respondent was required to pay the appellant occupation rent during the period of his exclusion. Relying upon figures provided by the single joint expert, the court awarded the appellant the sum of £59,958. This figure was said to be the rent that would be payable for occasional weekend and short usage of the property during the relevant six-year period. Both parties appealed the court’s calculation. On appeal, the appellant argued for a higher daily use figure. The High Court noted that this was an unusual case in respect of valuing the loss suffered. The appellant had been deprived of the use of a stately weekend home rather than a holiday let. In cases such as the present, the court observed that in circumstances where the appellant did not suffer any financial loss, the valuation assessment included an evaluative element and was not purely arithmetical. The appellant’s award was increased to £120,000 and the respondent’s cross-appeal was dismissed. As the court noted, this was an unusual case, but it does highlight that parties should always attempt to obtain valuation evidence that closely reflects the nature of the loss they have purportedly suffered. Elizabeth Dwomoh is a barrister at Lamb Chambers