(2) That presumption can be displaced by showing (a) that the parties had a different common intention at the time when they acquired the home, or
(b) that they later formed the common intention that their respective shares would change.

(3) Their common intention is to be deduced objectively from their conduct: “the relevant intention of each party is the intention which was reasonably understood
by the other party to be manifested by that party's words and conduct notwithstanding that he did not consciously formulate that intention in his own mind
or even acted with some different intention which he did not communicate to the other party” ... Examples of the sort of evidence
which might be relevant to drawing such inferences are given in Stack v Dowden, at para 69.

(4) In those cases where it is clear either (a) that the parties did not intend joint tenancy at the outset, or (b) had changed their original intention,
but it is not possible to ascertain by direct evidence or by inference what their actual intention was as to the shares in which they would own the property, “the answer is that each is entitled to that share which the court considers fair having regard to the whole course of dealing between them in relation to the property”... In our judgment, “the whole course of dealing … in relation to the property” should be given a broad meaning, enabling a similar range of factors to be taken into account as may be relevant to ascertaining the parties' actual intentions.

(5) Each case will turn on its own facts. Financial contributions are relevant but there are
many other factors which may enable the court to decide what shares were either intended (as in case (3)) or fair (as in case (4)).’