Jones (AE) v Jones (FW) [1977] 1 WLR 438
Proprietary estoppel and tenants in common.
Facts
The defendant’s father bought a house. The defendant, Frederick Jones, supplied one quarter of the purchase price on the mutual understanding that it would be his home for the rest of his life. He gave up his job and council house and moved into the property. When the father died, the house vested in the defendant’s stepmother, the plaintiff Alice Jones. She demanded rent from the defendant and, when he refused to pay, brought proceedings for possession. The first possession claim failed, the judge recognising the defendant’s one-quarter equitable interest. In later proceedings in 1975, the judge ordered him to pay three quarters of a fair rent and ordered sale if he failed to pay.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issues
It was established that the assurances made by the defendant’s father had induced the defendant to give up his job and council house. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff could not charge him rent on the basis of proprietary estoppel and counterclaimed that the plaintiff should transfer her interest in the house to him and that he should receive a life interest in the house.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant’s appeal. It held that the plaintiff and the defendant were tenants in common having three quarters and one quarter shares respectively. The mere fact that one tenant in common occupied the whole property did not give the other a claim for rent. Lord Denning MR distinguished cases of ouster and cases where one co-owner received rent from a third-party tenant. Here, the plaintiff could not claim rent merely because the defendant was in occupation. Lord Denning MR said that the father’s conduct induced the defendant to rely on it to his detriment in giving up his house and job. Therefore, the plaintiff was estopped from turning him out. The court also refused to grant an order for sale as this would frustrate the purpose the house was bought for, namely to provide the defendant with a home.
