What is the burden of showing good reason to order the sale of a jointly owned property?

The burden of showing good reason rests on the party opposing the sale: see Lys v. Lys (1868), L.R. 7 Eq. 126. In the present case, as I regard the evidence, I see no good reason why a sale of the property should not be ordered. The grounds raised by the defendant in opposition to the sale do not come within the meaning of hardship or economic oppression, nor do they constitute malice on the part of the plaintiff. In my view, the plaintiff has come into "court with clean hands" requesting the remedy to which he, as a joint tenant, is entitled to by law.

As joint tenants both the plaintiff and the defendant have rights of possession as owners of the property. In Cobb v. Cobb, [1955] 2 All E.R. 696; 1 W.L.R. 731; the parties to the action were husband and wife who contributed to the purchase of a house that was conveyed to them as joint tenants. Denning, L.J., at p. 698, said: … when both husband and wife contribute to the cost and the property is intended to be a continuing provision for them during their joint lives, the court leans towards the view that the property belongs to them both jointly in equal shares. This is so, even though the conveyance is taken in the name of one of them only and their contributions to the cost are unequal, and all the more so when the property is taken, as here, in their joint names and was intended to be owned by them in equal shares. The legal title is in them both jointly, and the beneficial interest is in them both as equitable tenants in common in equal shares. They hold the house as trustees on the statutory trusts for sale. Until the place is sold, each of them is entitled concurrently with the other to the possession of the house and to the use and enjoyment of it in a proper manner, and neither of them is entitled to turn out the other.