REF/2014/0955

 

PROPERTY CHAMBER, LAND REGISTRATION DIVISION

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

 

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE FROM HM LAND REGISTRY

 

 

BETWEEN

JASON SCATTERGOOD

 

APPLICANT

 

and

 

SHARON EILEEN LAMBERT

 

RESPONDENT

 

 

Property Address: 4 Monks Close, Dunscroft DN7 4QL

Title Numbers: SKY409334

 

Before: Judge Michell

 

Sitting at: Sheffield Tribunal Hearing Centre

On: 3 ^rd November 2015

 

 

Applicant Representation: Mr Holsgrove, counsel, instructed by Irwin Mitchell Solicitors

Respondents Representation: Mr Andrew Lord, counsel, instructed by Freeths Solicitors

 

___________________________________________________________________________­

 

DECISION

___________________________________________________________________________

 

Application to alter register to remove restriction - Whether A entitled to a beneficial interest in property registered in the name of R

 

 

Cases referred to

Hussey v. Palmer [1972] 1WLR 1286,CA

Stack v. Dowden [2007] UKHL 17

O'Kelly v. Davies [2014] EWCA Civ 1606

 

1. The Applicant, Mr Jason Scattergood applied to HM Land Registry for the entry of a restriction on the title to 4 Monks Close, Dunsford ("the Property"). He claims to have a beneficial interest in the Property. The Respondent, Mrs Sharon Lambert is the registered proprietor of the Property. By mistake, HM Land Registry treated the application as an application to enter an agreed notice and registered the restriction before it had given notice of the application to Mrs Lambert. The restriction was entered on 3rd September 2014. Following receipt of a letter from Land Registry dated 22 ^nd September 2014 stating that the restriction had been entered, Mrs Lambert made an application to remove the restriction. Mr Scattergood objected to that application and the matter was referred to the Tribunal for determination. The Tribunal designated Mr Scattergood as applicant in the proceedings because it is for him to establish that he has a beneficial interest in the Property.

 

2. Mr Scattergood's case is that there was an express agreement between him and Mrs Lambert made in 2012 that he should acquire a one half share in the Property by paying a sum equal to half the value of the equity in the Property, that half being worth £31,000 and by paying one half of the mortgage instalments. He says that he made payments totalling £18,640 in reliance on this agreement and subsequently carried out works of decoration and maintenance to the Property. He says in the alternative that an agreement can be inferred from the conduct of the parties. Curiously Mr Scattergood does not quantify his beneficial interest as a fractional or percentage share of the Property but in the fixed sum of £18,640.

 

3. Mrs Lambert's case is that there was no agreement either expressed or implied that Mr Scattergood would acquire an interest in the Property. She accepts that he paid some money towards her credit card debts but says that these payments were essentially gifts to her made by Mr Scattergood to make up for her having subsidised his living expenses over the course of their relationship. Mrs Lambert says that Mr Scattergood did no substantial works to the Property and what he did do was not done in reliance on any agreement that he should have an interest in the Property, because there was no such agreement.

 

4. Mrs Lambert bought the Property in 2002. She has two children by a previous relationship, a daughter born in 1992 and a son born in 1994. Mr Scattergood and Mrs Lambert met in February 2005 and started seeing each other regularly. A relationship between them developed. Mr Scattergood was then living with his father in Shipley where he had a car sales business. Mr Scattergood began to stay with Mrs Lambert every other weekend at the Property. They kept their finances separate. They did not have a joint bank account at this stage or any joint savings. They went on a number of holidays together and exchanged gifts. Mr Scattergood says that he spent about £45,000 on holidays, clothes and jewellery for Mrs Lambert over the course of 8 years of their relationship. Mrs Lambert says that she spent sums on him and that she paid for restaurant and other bills without Mr Scattergood making a full contribution.

 

5. Mr Scattergood says that in about 2010 he and Mrs Lambert started discussing owning a property jointly. He also says that Mrs Lambert wanted him to buy a house for them to live in together and for the Property to be rented out. In his witness statement, he said that by October 2012 he and Mrs Lambert had agreed that he would make payments "over time" to acquire a 50% share in the equity in the Property and would pay half the mortgage costs. He says that they agreed to renovate the Property and put it on the market for rental. Mr Scattergood was to look for a new house for him and Mrs Lambert to live in. Mr Scattergood did not specify in his written evidence when and where the agreement was made. In cross-examination, he said that it was during a holiday in August 2012 that the parties came to this agreement. Mr Scattergood agreed that he had not seen any valuation of the Property or seen any documentation showing what was outstanding on the mortgage. He did not know if the mortgage was a repayment mortgage or an interest-only mortgage. He said that Mrs Lambert told him that there was equity of about £62,000 in the Property. In his witness statement he said that the intention was that he would over the course of the months that followed, make lump sum payments which would eventually total £31,000. In cross-examination, he said that there was no agreement as to the time frame for the payments and he thought initially that he was going to make one single payment of £31,000. He said that he had the funds available to make such a payment. He said that at the time he made the agreement with Mrs Lambert, he did not know about her credit card debts.

 

6. The evidence is that in the August 2012 Mrs Lambert was making mortgage payments of £377.19 per month and endowment policy premiums of £79.33, making a total of £456.52. The monies owed on mortgage were divided between a repayment mortgage and an interest only mortgage. Mrs Lambert said that she was entitled to make additional repayments of up to 10 per cent on the repayment mortgage and to redeem early 20 per cent of the money secured by the interest only mortgage. At the time Mr Scattergood made the payments he relies on, Mrs Lambert was working as a Programme Manager for a NHS Trust on an annual salary of £34,189. Mrs Lambert's monthly salary paid after deductions was £1,913.93. Her mortgage was therefore about 20 per cent of her take home pay. There was no evidence before me as to the amount of Mr Scattergood's annual earnings.

 

7. Mr Scattergood said that following the agreement and in partial performance of it, he made payments to or for the benefit of Mrs Lambert. In his witness statement, he said that he paid £5,000 he obtained in cash from his father to Mrs Lambert in or around November 2012, £7,534.81, which he withdrew on 12 November 2012 and paid to Mrs Lambert shortly thereafter, and £2,341.07, which he withdrew on 3 ^rd December 2012 and paid to Mrs Lambert shortly thereafter. He did not pay any more of the £31,000 he said because Mrs Lambert did not want it. He said that Mrs Lambert wanted him to keep the balance to put towards their buying a house together. He said that he paid a total of 14 monthly cash payments to Mrs Lambert "in respect of his half share of the mortgage". In his witness statement, he said both that he started making these payments after making "the initial lump sum transfers" and that he started making these payments in October 2012. Mr Scattergood also said that purchased a car for Mrs Lambert "pursuant to the same arrangement". He said that the car was a payment in kind towards his acquisition of a share in the Property. He said that towards the end of 2013 and in early 2014 he carried out "significant refurbishment works" to the Property. These works were re-laying a patio, removing rubbish and debris, paying for materials, carrying out interior decorating; waxing interior doors; and repairing and cleaning the block paving on the drive. The payments Mr Scattergood says he made amount to £18,640.

 

8. Mrs Lambert's solicitors said in a letter dated 19 ^th August 2014 responding to a letter before action from Mr Scattergood's solicitors, that Mr Scattergood told Mrs Lambert that he wanted to purchase "half" the Property but that Mrs Lambert always responded saying that this would be discussed if the parties "ever got to that point in their relationship" but they did not. Mrs Lambert did not recall having a conversation with Mr Scattergood about the Property during their holiday in August 2012 but she accepted that he may well have asked her what the Property was worth and how much was outstanding on the mortgage. Mrs Lambert said that Mr Scattergood asked her all sorts of things about her financial situation. Mrs Lambert accepts that Mr Scattergood made some payments towards her credit card debts in November 2012 but she denies that these were paid pursuant to some agreement for Mr Scattergood to acquire an interest in the Property. Mrs Lambert says that there never was any such agreement. Mrs Lambert denies that Mr Scattergood purchased a car for her and she denies that he carried out any significant work on the Property. Mrs Lambert says that the patio was not re-laid but was extended by her brother without assistance from Mr Scattergood. She says Mr Scattergood helped remove rubbish from the garage on one occasion and on one occasion cleaned the paving on the drive to clear off an oil mark left by his car. Mrs Lambert accepts that Mr Scattergood helped her with painting the Property on one occasion and that he helped her seal interior doors with Danish oil. However, she says that she did the vast majority of the work.

 

9. Mr Scattergood said the £5,000 was money he obtained in cash from his father. On 30 ^th September 2012 £5,000 was paid to Mrs Lambert's Capital One MasterCard account 5460975713236508. Mrs Lambert said this was not a payment made with Mr Scattergood's money but was a payment made by transferring the £5,000 debt to a Santander account number 001577825000182722. A statement she provided from Santander shows a promotional balance transfer of £5,000 made on 29 ^th September 2012. Although this is described as a "credit transaction" on the statement, the presence of another "credit transaction" of a balance transfer fee of £150 shows that the statement shows amounts of debt owed by Mrs Lambert to Santander. In her second witness statement Mrs Lambert said that she had been told by a customer services representative at Santander that the debit balance of £5,000 was transferred to the Santander account from Mrs Lambert's Lloyds TSB credit card (not Capital One). In cross-examination, Mrs Lambert said that this was a mistake.

 

10. Evidence about the sum of £5,000 was given by Mr Scattergood's father, Mr Julian Scattergood. He said that in about October 2012 Jason Scattergood told him that he had agreed with Mrs Lambert that he would buy into the equity in the Property. He said that Jason did not then have a lot of spare capital since Julian had put nearly £70,000 into a development project he was doing with his father. Jason told him that he needed some of the money he had invested in the project straight away so that he could make payments to Mrs Lambert. Mr Julian Scattergood had £5,000 in cash in his safe and gave it to Jason Scattergood.

 

11. Mr Scattergood pointed to a withdrawal from his RBS bank account of £7,534.81 on 12 ^th November 2012. In his witness statement he said that the £7,534.81 was paid to a number of different credit cards. Mrs Lambert had a Lloyds TSB Platinum Mastercard number 5521570097124417. The balance of £11,534.81 owing on this card was paid off on 13 ^th November 2012. In his oral evidence, Mr Scattergood said he paid £7,534.81 to this credit card; in cross-examination he said he was not sure if Mrs Lambert paid the balance of £4,000. He said that Mrs Lambert gave him the credit card payment slip and he paid the money to the credit card company. Mrs Lambert accepted that Mr Scattergood had made a payment to this credit card. In cross-examination she said that she thought Mr Scattergood paid the whole of the £11,534.81.

12. The sum of £2,341.07 was paid out of Mr Scattergood's RBS account number 10034818 on 3 ^rd December 2012. On the same day a payment of £2,341.07 was paid to clear the balance on Mrs Lambert's Mint MasterCard number 5460195011739703. Mrs Lambert accepts that Mr Scattergood made the payment to this credit card.

 

13. Mrs Lambert had substantial credit card debts. She managed these in part by taking advantage of zero interest balance transfer offers.

 

14. Mrs Lambert said that over the length of her relationship with Mr Scattergood, she had paid for a number of things for him using her credit card. As an example, she said that when they went out to a restaurant for dinner in Italy to celebrate his birthday, Mr Scattergood ordered a bottle of Crystal champagne, the cost of which was put on Mrs Lambert's credit card. She said that on another occasion she went out to an Indian restaurant for dinner with Mr Scattergood and her children. The bill came to £120, which Mrs Lambert felt was high and was only that amount in total because Mr Scattergood had been drinking beer at the restaurant. Mr Scattergood denied that Mrs Lambert had supported him financially. He said that throughout the duration of the relationship, he had met the vast majority of expenditure on their social lives. He also said that he had bought a brand new Ferrari 548 Italia in November 2011 and had taken Mrs Lambert on a trip around Europe in this car. However, Mr Julian Scattergood said that the Ferrari was a car he bought and owned and that he allowed Mr Scattergood and his other children to drive it.

 

15. Mr Scattergood said that in December 2012 Mrs Lambert gave him a key to the Property. He had not had a key of his own before; if one had been left for him to use, he would have posted it back through the letter box after locking the door behind him. Mrs Lambert said that Mr Scattergood had used a key to the Property throughout their relationship but that they had been together for a long time before Mr Scattergood kept a key. She accepted that it could have been in December 2012 that she gave him a key to keep.

 

16. Mr Scattergood produced some documents relating to a Renault Megane car. There is a chain of emails sent on 8 ^th November 2012. At 13.30 Mr Scattergood emailed Mrs Lambert saying he had got a particular Renault Megane and mentioned the price, "£2,000 how about that". Mrs Lambert replied at 13.39 "So when you be put your mind to it you can do whatever ....". Mr Lambert then replied "Oh thanks it does depend on the car being there at the auction and I made an offer on it because they wanted more money, but I wasn't going to pay what they wanted". There is no document stating the date of the auction, if the car was at the auction or what Mr Lambert paid. There is an invoice addressed to Mrs Lambert for a Renault Megane car registration number HN55 YVG, giving the cash price of the car as £2,000 and stating that an allowance of £1,000 is made against the price for the part exchange of a Peugeot car. The invoice purports to be signed by Mrs Lambert as acknowledging delivery of the car and to be dated 24 ^th November 2012. There is no explanation of what happened between 8 ^th November and 24 ^th November. Mr Scattergood also produced a letter from Mr Philip Roworth in which Mr Roworth stated that he has been the accountant for Capital House Marketing Ltd for 12 years and that £1,000 was deducted from Mr Scattergood's director's dividend account for the year ended 31 ^st March 2013for a Renault Megane registration number HN55 YVG. Mrs Lambert said that she had never seen the invoice before these proceedings. She did part exchange her car for the Renault Megane, which Mr Scattergood sourced. If Mr Scattergood had told her she owed money for the car, she would have paid it but she could not recall what conversation there was about the car at the time. She said that there was never an agreement between them that the £1,000 for the car should be treated as a payment towards Mr Scattergood acquiring a share in the Property.

 

17. As to the monthly payments, Mr Scattergood's solicitors in their letter dated 19 ^th August 2014 said that the payments reduced to £180 a month in November 2013 "reflecting that more capital had accrued in the house". Mrs Lambert said that Mr Scattergood did not make the monthly payments he alleges he made.

 

18. Mrs Lambert said that in about May 2013 she and Mr Scattergood considered buying a house together. She did not want to sell the Property and so decided to let it out. She contacted letting agents in August 2013 for advice about letting the Property. On 5 ^th August 2013 she emailed Mr Scattergood after ringing the agents and said

"No 23 was advertised on the internet on 30 ^th July when the person vacated the property, they had two viewings on the 31 ^st July and the let was agreed the same day. The guy thinks that mine (ours) would do the same but may be for a little more money".

Later the same day Mrs Lambert forwarded to Mr Scattergood an email from letting agents responding to her contacting them regarding the letting of the Property. On 13 ^th August 2013 Mrs Lambert forwarded to Mr Scattergood an email entitled "How to rent your home". Asked in cross-examination about the use of the word "ours" in brackets in the first email of 5 ^th August 2013, Mrs Lambert said that there were discussions in about September or October 2013 or possibly a little before about Mr Scattergood buying into the Property. Mrs Lambert said that she used the word "ours" in the letter because there was then a possibility that Mr Scattergood would buy into the Property.

 

19. As to the works Mr Scattergood said he did to the Property, Mrs Lambert said that Mr Scattergood helped her take rubbish from the garage to the tip on one single occasion, that he did not pay for any materials but did do some painting with a roller and that he helped her on one occasion to clean an oil mark off the drive. That was the extent of the works Mr Scattergood did.

 

20. Mr Scattergood purchased 98 St Lawrence Road, Chesterfield in his sole name in January 2014 and Mr Scattergood and Mrs Lambert moved in together. Only then did they open a joint bank account. They opened an account at the Long Eaton, Nottingham branch of RBS on 4 ^th February 2014. However, their relationship came to an abrupt end in March 2014. Mrs Lambert accused Mr Scattergood of assault and made a complaint to the police. Mr Scattergood was prosecuted for domestic violence and battery but was acquitted.

 

21. Mr Scattergood sent text messages to Mrs Lambert on 23 ^rd and 25 ^th July 2014. In a text sent at 20:46 on 25 ^th July he said "I just want to know when your giving me my money please???". At 20.54 on the same day he sent a text saying "I only want what I put in, I will take £18,500 for a fast settlement or it will go up". At 20:57 he wrote "I can put it back on your cards with my switch machine and I then I will delete your details and you will never hear from me again promise". At 08:32 on 26 ^th July, he wrote "Can you get Monks Close valued please and its been rented since second week in May at £595 from Melissa Hollingsworth". Mr Scattergood's solicitors wrote a letter before action to Mrs Lambert dated 19th August 2014. They stated that in the light of the agreement between Mr Scattergood and Mrs Lambert, the financial contributions made to Mr Scattergood gave rise to a beneficial interest in Monks Close; that Mr Scattergood required Mrs Lambert to buy out his share; and that he valued his share in Monks Close as equivalent to the sums invested, which amounted to £18,640.

 

Law

22. Mr Scattergood claims an interest in the Property in reliance on a common intention constructive trust. If it is agreed that a person should have some beneficial interest in a property previously beneficially owned by the legal owner and the person acts on that agreement to his detriment in the reasonable belief that he is acquiring a beneficial interest, then effect will be given to that agreement - see Hussey v. Palmer [1972] 1WLR 1286,CA. Mr Scattergood must prove that it was the common intention, agreement or understanding of Mrs Lambert and himself that he should have an interest in the Property and that acted in reliance on that agreement as by making the payments and/or carrying out works to the Property in the reasonable belief that he was acquiring an interest in the Property. Mr Scattergood can prove the common intention either by proving that there was an express assurance, promise or agreement or by proving facts from which a common intention is to be inferred. In Stack v. Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 it was said that it is possible to infer a common intention from the whole course of dealing between the parties. That case was concerned on the facts with a claim by one of two legal and beneficial owners to an enlarged share and not with the question whether a person had any interest at all. However, the approach of considering the whole course of dealings between the parties in order to determine whether one had an interest in the house of which the other was the sole legal owner was followed by the Court of Appeal in O'Kelly v. Davies [2014] EWCA Civ 1606.

 

Was there an express agreement?

23. Having heard the witnesses and considered all the evidence, I am not satisfied that the parties reached an agreement in August 2012 as Mr Scattergood alleges or at all that he should acquire an interest in the Property by making payments amounting to £31,000. The following matters lead me to this conclusion.

 

24. Firstly, Mr Scattergood was not wholly a credible witness. In his first witness statement made on 11 ^th May 2015, he referred in paragraph 41.4 to parking his Ferrari on the drive of the Property and in paragraph 49, he stated that he bought a brand new Ferrari. However, his father gave evidence that the Ferrari belonged to him and that he let Mr Scattergood and his other children drive it. I have no doubt that Mr Julian Scattergood was telling the truth and that his son, Mr Scattergood was being, at best, careless with the truth when he described the Ferrari as his and as having been bought by him.

 

25. Mr Scattergood's evidence was contradictory in that he said in cross-examination that when the agreement was made, he expected to make a single lump sum payment of £31,000 and that he would have been able to do so. Yet, on his evidence, only a month or so after the agreement was made, he had to ask his father for money in order to be able to pay £5,000 to Mrs Lambert.

 

25. Mr Scattergood appeared not to think in terms of being a part owner of the Property but in terms of having a claim for the repayment of money provided to Mrs Lambert. That is shown by the way in which he quantified his claim to a beneficial interest as being a certain sum of money and not a fractional or percentage share of the Property. It is also shown by his reference in paragraph 52 of his witness statement of 11 ^th May 2015 to Mrs Lambert trying to find means "not to repay the money I am owed".

 

26. I do not consider it probable that Mr Scattergood and Mrs Lambert would have reached an agreement for Mr Scattergood to acquire a one half share in the Property in return for payment of the specific sum of £31,000 without having obtained an up to date valuation of the Property and a mortgage redemption statement. The sum of £31,000 is not inconsiderable. The Property was Mrs Lambert's main asset (there was no suggestion in the evidence that she had any other asset of anywhere near comparable value). Mr Scattergood is a businessman and can be expected to have wanted accurate information as to the value of the Property before agreeing a particular sum of money. Mrs Lambert is a person who is used to paying some attention to her financial affairs in that she takes advantage of interest free credit card balance offers to manage her debts and by changing mortgage provided at the end of fixed interest rate periods. I do not consider she would have agreed a sum to be paid for a share in her Property without having checked the value of the Property and the mortgage balance outstanding. Mrs Lambert accepted in her evidence that she could have told Mr Scattergood what she thought the Property was worth but there was no evidence that Mrs Lambert had obtained a recent valuation of the Property in August 2012 or just before.

 

27. I do not consider it probable that if Mrs Lambert had agreed in August 2012 that Mr Scattergood should acquire a half share in her Property for £31,000, she would have told Mr Scattergood not to pay her the money but only to make some payments totalling about half this sum to her credit cards and what is more, would have asked for the payments to be made only in October and November 2012. There was no explanation as to why, if the money was to be paid by payments to Mrs Lambert's credit cards, the payments were not made in August or in September when the parties got back from holiday. Mrs Lambert had credit card liabilities in September 2012 and these could have been discharged in September. Mr Scattergood suggested that Mrs Lambert did not want the money because this would cause her a problem with HM Revenue and Customs and affect her entitlement to tax credits. He pointed to a text message sent to him by Mrs Lambert on 22 ^nd March 2013 in which she said she was being taken to court by the Inland Revenue to recover overpaid tax credits. There was no detailed evidence as to how or why the payment would have affected any tax credit entitlement. It seems to me that this is an explanation that Mr Scattergood came up with after looking at the text message to explain why he did not pay the £31,000.

 

28. If there had been an agreement for Mr Scattergood to pay £31,000 and that he should retain the balance after payment of the credit cards for Mrs Lambert to use if the parties bought a house jointly, it is surprising that when in December 2013 a house in Chesterfield was purchased with the idea of them both living in it, that the balance should be treated as giving Mrs Lambert an interest in the new house. There is no evidence that the balance said to be due to Mrs Lambert was referred to at all by either party after Mrs Lambert had allegedly asked Mr Scattergood to keep it.

 

29. Further, if there had been an agreement for Mr Scattergood to retain the balance of the £31,000 for Mrs Lambert, one would have expected the parties to have agreed that it should be put into an interest-earning account for Mrs Lambert's benefit.

 

29. I do not accept that Mr Scattergood agreed to or did pay one half of the mortgage payments for the Property from October 2012 onwards. He was unable to point to bank statements to show each of the payments. Mrs Lambert said that Mr Scattergood did not make these payments. The amount he said he paid for the first 12 payments was a little over one half of the mortgage payments but if he was to pay one half of the monthly cost of the mortgage then he could be expected to have paid also one half of the endowment policy premiums. Mrs Lambert's mortgage was partly a repayment mortgage and partly an interest only mortgage with a linked endowment policy to provide funds to repay the amount borrowed on the interest-only part of the mortgage.

 

30. I take into account the fact that Mr Scattergood made the payments to Mrs Lambert's Lloyds TSB Platinum Mastercard credit card and to Mrs Lambert's Mint MasterCard credit card and that there is no evidence he had paid money towards her credit cards before October 2012. I also take into account that Mrs Lambert has given differing responses to Mr Scattergood's assertions that he made the credit card payments in partial performance of an agreement for him to purchase an interest in the Property. Mrs Lambert's solicitors wrote in their letter dated 19 ^th September 2014 that Mr Scattergood agreed to pay off some of Mrs Lambert's credit card liability as an "acknowledgement of our client looking after your client and as an expression of his commitment to her". They also said that it was an acknowledgment of what Mrs Lambert had already spent on supporting Mr Scattergood. In her second witness statement, Mrs Lambert said that the payments were made "either voluntarily, or in recognition of that fact that the Applicant had historically used and incurred debt upon my credit cards". At the hearing, Mrs Lambert did not produce specific details of Mr Scattergood having used her credit card (beyond her evidence of his ordering a bottle of Crystal champagne for a meal on his birthday for which she paid). It was in her oral evidence that she said that they had had a discussion about her effectively subsidising his life expenses by paying for everything when he came to stay in her house. However, I do not consider that fundamentally Mrs Lambert has changed her story. Her case is essentially that Mr Scattergood made the payments to her credit card because she told him she had been paying through her credit cards for what were in substance his living expenses or part of them. I accept that there was such a conversation and that this is why Mr Scattergood made the payments.

 

31. I do not consider that the reference in Mrs Lambert's email of 5 ^th August 2013 to the Property as "mine (ours)" is an acknowledgement by Mrs Lambert that Mr Scattergood had then a beneficial interest in the Property. This letter was written only a few months before the parties moved in together and shortly before the purchase of the Chesterfield house. In that context, it is a recognition that the parties would be thinking of combining their resources. Considering the matters mentioned above and the totality of the evidence, it does not lead me to conclude that Mrs Lambert had agreed that Mr Scattergood was to acquire an interest in the Property, as he alleges.

 

32. I have also taken account of Mr Julian Scattergood's evidence that he was told by Mr Scattergood that he had agreed with Mrs Lambert that he would acquire a share in the Property. Mr Scattergood may well have told his father that but I do not consider that if so, what he told his father was correct.

 

33. As to the claim made by Mr Scattergood that an agreement he was to acquire a beneficial interest in the Property is to be inferred from the whole course of dealing between them, I do not accept that such an inference is properly to be drawn. He did not make payments to the mortgage. As to the work he said he did to the Property, I prefer the evidence of Mrs Lambert, who consider generally to have been a more reliable witness. The work he did is such as can be expected to be done by a person in a relationship to help out their partner. It is not such as taken with other matters leads to the inference that it was agreed he would have a beneficial interest in the Property. Further, in considering whether an inference is to be drawn from the whole course of conduct of the parties, I note that the Chesterfield house was purchased by Mr Scattergood and put into his sole name. This factor taken with the other matters mentioned here, leads me to conclude that the correct inference on the facts is not that Mrs Lambert's property was to be shared beneficially.

 

Conclusions

34. Mr Scattergood has not established that he is entitled to a beneficial interest in the Property. Accordingly, the registration of the restriction on his application was a mistake. There is a mistake on the register. The registrar has power under Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002 to alter the register to correct the mistake. The registrar should give effect to Mrs Lambert's application in order to correct the mistake on the register by removing the restriction.

 

35. My preliminary view as to costs is that Mr Scattergood should pay Mrs Lambert's costs of the proceedings. I know of no reason why it would not be just to make an order in accordance with the usual practice of making the losing party pay the costs of the winning party. Any party who wishes to submit that some different order should be made as to costs should serve written submissions on the Tribunal and on the other party by 5pm on 15 ^th January 2015.

 

 

 

BY ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

 

 

 

DATED THIS 22 ^nd day of December 2015