Dixon vs Sharkey

This case involved a dispute between Mr. Dixon and Ms. Sharkey regarding the beneficial interest in a property they cohabited at 3A Deerpark Road, Ardstraw, Omagh.

TLDR:

• Mr. Dixon and Ms. Sharkey cohabited but never married.
• The property in dispute was built on a site gifted to Mr. Dixon by his mother.
• Mr. Dixon claimed he bore the entire cost of construction.
• Ms. Sharkey claimed she contributed significantly to household expenses and soft furnishings.
• The court found in favor of Mr. Dixon, declaring Ms. Sharkey had no beneficial interest in the property.

The defendant, Anne Sharkey, became a widow in 1997 and had two children from her previous marriage. She started a relationship with Mr. Dixon around 2001. They lived together from 2006 until 2015 at the property in dispute, 3A Deerpark Road, Ardstraw, Omagh. The couple never married but had three children together.

The property was built on a site gifted to Mr. Dixon by his mother in 2005. The title showed that Mr. Dixon's father owned the adjacent property and the site upon which the property was constructed. In 2006, the property was transferred to Mr. Dixon and Ms. Sharkey as joint tenants for natural love and affection. Mr. Dixon claimed he bore the entire cost of construction, amounting to approximately £100,000, funded through a mortgage, savings, and a loan from his mother.

Ms. Sharkey worked as a dinner lady and claimed she contributed to household expenses and purchased items for the new property. She estimated her contribution at around £100,000, though she provided little substantiation for these payments. The couple maintained separate bank accounts and dealt with their finances separately.

The plaintiff, Mr. Dixon, argued that there was an agreement for Ms. Sharkey to sell her property at 68 Cannondale and contribute the proceeds towards the construction costs of the property. However, the sale of Cannondale fell through due to a title dispute, and it was decided to rent the property instead. Mr. Dixon claimed that Ms. Sharkey reneged on the agreement to sell Cannondale and contribute financially.

Ms. Sharkey argued that the parties agreed to retain Cannondale and use the rental income for household expenses. She also claimed that the property was transferred into their joint names in anticipation of their marriage and the birth of their first child. She asserted that they both contributed as much as they could to the household expenses and should share the property equally.

The court examined the evidence and found Mr. Dixon's claims more compelling. The court noted that Mr. Dixon provided substantial documentary evidence of his financial contributions to the construction of the property. In contrast, Ms. Sharkey's claims were less substantiated and less convincing.

The court concluded that the common intention was for the property to be transferred into joint names on the condition that both parties would contribute equally in terms of capital. Since Ms. Sharkey did not fulfill her part of the agreement by selling Cannondale, she did not have a beneficial interest in the property. The court allowed the appeal and ordered Ms. Sharkey to transfer her interest in the property to Mr. Dixon.

Legal representatives: Mr. B Devlin BL (instructed by Mark Quigley Solicitors) for the Plaintiff, Ms. Maria Mulally BL (instructed by John Fahy & Co Solicitors) for the Defendant.

Judicial Panel: Huddleston J

Case Citation Reference: [2021] EWCA 123