Held, appeal dismissed. Since there was no dispute that the claimant and his parents acquired the property on trust for themselves as equal co-owners, the question was whether it was also intended that they should be joint owners with the right of survivorship, or whether they were tenants in common in equal shares with no right of survivorship. On the findings of the judge the present case was not one where partners acquired land as part of their partnership assets, but one where land was acquired for business purposes. There was a very longstanding and well established principle that equity would usually assume that co-owners acquiring property for business purposes did not intend survivorship. There was nothing in the higher authorities relied on in the domestic context which suggested that that principle had been undermined or affected in any way. Neither case concerned the question of survivorship, and in both cases remarks were confined to the case of cohabiting couples in an intimate relationship, and the court went out of its way to say that commercial cases were different. Thus, although the principle that the onus was on the person seeking to show that the beneficial ownership was different from the legal ownership was not confined to the domestic context, that was only the starting point. Where such property was acquired for business purposes, the court would very readily assume that survivorship, and hence joint tenancy, was not intended. The effect of putting such property into joint names was no doubt to raise a powerful inference that the legal owners were intended to be beneficially interested in the property, but if the legal title was in more than one name, the parties had no choice but to hold the legal title jointly, as legal tenancies in common had long been impermissible. In those circumstances, the inference that they thereby intended a beneficial joint tenancy with its right of survivorship rather than a tenancy in common seemed likely to be in many contexts a much weaker one, and in the case of land bought for business purposes one that was easily and normally displaced by the presumption that such property was intended to be held in common. The judge had not been wrong to apply that principle (paras 35, 41, 45, 50, 58–62, 63, 78–79, 80, 81).