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 19 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the decision in Leigh v Dickeson (1884) 15 QBD 60, which remains good law. The core principles — that co-owners are under no obligation to repair jointly owned property, and that a co-owner who carries out repairs unilaterally cannot compel a contribution from the other co-owner(s) — continue to be recognised in English property law.
The article’s reference to partition as a potential avenue for relief remains broadly correct, though readers should note that the modern mechanism for resolving co-ownership disputes, including the adjustment of shares to reflect expenditure on improvements or repairs, is now primarily governed by the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA). Under TOLATA, a court may order sale or other relief, and in doing so may take equitable accounting into account when determining the parties’ respective shares of proceeds. The equitable accounting jurisdiction — under which a court can, on a sale, credit a co-owner who has incurred improvement expenditure — has been confirmed in later cases including Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Wilcox v Tait [2006] EWCA Civ 1867. The principle from Leigh v Dickeson that there is no freestanding right to demand contribution for repairs remains intact, but the equitable accounting remedy available on partition or sale is an important qualification that students should be aware of.
