I am increasingly seeing disputes in relation to the beneficial ownership of property. The law in this area is complex, and in my experience, often interpreted differently - which can make cases difficult to settle and risky to litigate. 

Bailey v Dixon [2021] below, provides some clarification on when occupation rent should be paid by the person occupying the property. There was previously suggestion that the co-owner had to be 'excluded' from the property, and at first instance the bar for exclusion was set very high in this case - akin to changing the locks, a physical exclusion.

This was overturned, an appeal allowed. There is no such requirement. In this case, there had been a breakdown of the relationship between the parties and the respondent left the property. This was sufficient, there is no ouster or physical exclusion requirement.