Leigh v Dickeson (1884) 15 QBD 60, CA
Equitable accounting between co-owners of property
Facts
In this case a property was co-owned by two individuals. One of them (who was in possession of the property) decided on a need to effect repairs on the property and went ahead to carry them out unilaterally. He used his own funds to carry out these repairs. Having completed the repairs, that co-owner felt that since the property was co-owned, then the other owner should also pay for their share of the repairs. He therefore launched the action in the current case in order to obtain the desired contribution to the repair costs from the second owner.
Issue
The issue in this case was whether there was a duty on co-owners to repair the property and whether once one co-owner carries out repairs, the other is obliged to contribute to the repair costs.
Decision/Outcome
The court held that there was no obligation on co-owners to repair a property and that they can leave a property to fall into disrepair. In addition, where there was a voluntary unilateral decision on the part of one co-owner to effect repairs, the other co-owner(s) is/are not obliged to contribute (unless they have agreed to) as to hold otherwise would mean that one co-owner could force the other(s) to spend money on repair they do not wish to, simply by spending some themselves. This is the case regardless of whether the repairs increase the value of the property. However, the co-owner seeking contribution could instead get some relief through a suit of partition.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Leigh v Dickeson (1884) 15 QBD 60. The core legal principles remain good law: co-owners are not obliged to repair co-owned property, and a co-owner who unilaterally carries out repairs cannot compel the other co-owner(s) to contribute to the cost, unless there has been agreement to do so. The remedy of partition noted in the article remains available under the Partition Act 1868, though in practice today the court’s power to order sale in lieu of partition under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA) is the more commonly used mechanism. Readers should note that where co-owned property is held on trust (as is typically the case in modern English land law following the Law of Property Act 1925), the relevant framework for resolving disputes between co-owners, including applications relating to sale or partition, is now governed by TOLATA 1996, sections 14 and 15 in particular. The equitable accounting principle discussed in Leigh v Dickeson has been applied and affirmed in subsequent cases, including Bhura v Bhura [2012] EWHC 3633 (Fam) and Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, confirming the continuing relevance of the case. The article is therefore broadly accurate for its purpose, though students should be aware of the modern statutory context provided by TOLATA 1996.
