DOCSLIB.ORG

Oxley V Hiscock Court of Appeal [2004] EWCA Civ

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Oxley V Hiscock Court of Appeal [2004] EWCA Civ Page 1 Oxley v Hiscock Court of Appeal [2004] EWCA Civ 546, [2005] Fam 211, [2004] 2 FLR 669, [2004] Fam Law 569, [2004] Conv. 496 HEARING-DATES: 6 May 2004 6 May 2004 CATCHWORDS: Property -- Unmarried couple -- Property in name of one party -- Unequal contributions to purchase price by both -- Assessment of quantum of parties' respective beneficial interests -- Principles to be applied HEADNOTE: When the couple first began to cohabit, they lived in a house occupied by the woman as a secure tenant. After a short time the woman exercised her right to buy the house, using money provided by the man. The property was in the woman's sole name, but to safeguard the man's beneficial interest a legal charge in his name was registered against the house. The house was eventually sold and the proceeds used to purchase another property, this time in the man's sole name. Ignoring any liability for interest under the man's legal charge, the effective contributions by the couple were £36,300 by the woman and £60,700 by the man, a fur- ther £30,000 being borrowed from the building society. Despite receiving legal advice on the importance of clarifying the beneficial interests concerned, no declaration of the parties' respective beneficial interests was made and no charge was registered in the woman's name. For a number of years the couple lived together in the property, both working and contributing to household expenditure, and both working on improvements to and maintenance of the property. Following the breakdown of the relationship, the property was sold for £232,000, and the couple moved into two separate homes, one purchased in the woman's name, using £33,000 of the proceeds of sale, and one in the man's name. The man paid the woman a further £5,000 and some money for renovations of her new home, but retained the balance of the proceeds of sale. The woman applied under s 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 for a declaration that the proceeds of sale of the property were held on trust in equal shares. The judge found that the couple had ex- pressly agreed in discussions that each would have a beneficial share in the property, registering it in the man's sole name primarily because of concerns about a potential claim by the woman's former husband in the event of the woman's death. However, the judge found no express agreement as to the extent of the par- ties' respective shares. The judge took the view that the woman was entitled to a half-share in the proceeds of sale, and awarded her a further £72,056. The man appealed, on the basis that, absent any specific evi- dence of a common intention as to the proportions in which the parties should be entitled, communicated at the time of the transaction, the presumption which applied was one of resulting trust in the proportions in which the purchase money had been provided. Held -- allowing the appeal in part -- (1) In cases in which an unmarried couple bought a property, intending to live together as husband and wife, each making a financial contribution to the purchase but purchasing the property in the sole name of one of them and making no express declaration of trust, the first question was whether there was evidence from which to infer a common intention, communicated by each to the other, that each should have a benefi- cial interest in the property. In many cases, including the instant case, discussion between the parties at the time of the purchase would answer that question. Where the evidence was that the matter had not been dis- cussed, a common intention might readily be inferred from the fact that each had made a financial contribu- tion (see para [68]). (2) If such a common intention had been inferred, the second question to be answered in such cases was 'what was the extent of the parties' respective beneficial interests in the property?'. In many cases the Page 2 [2004] EWCA Civ 546, [2005] Fam 211, [2004] 2 FLR 669, [2004] Fam Law 569, [2004] Conv. 496 answer would, again, be provided by discussions at the time of the purchase, but in the absence of specific evidence on the point, each would be entitled to that share which the court considered fair, having regard to the whole course of dealing between them in relation to the property, including the arrangements which they made from time to time in order to meet the outgoings which had to be met to enable them to live in the pro- perty as their home (see para [69]). (3) There was no difference in outcome, in cases of this nature, whether the analysis lay in constructive trust or in proprietary estoppel. If necessary, such cases could be analysed on the basis that if it were a cou- ple's common intention that each should have some beneficial interest in the property, then, in the absence of evidence that they had given any thought to the amount of their respective shares, the necessary infer- ence was that they must have intended that the question would be answered later on the basis of what was then seen to be fair. It was artificial, and an unnecessary fiction, to attribute to the parties a common intention that the extent of their respective beneficial interests in the property should be fixed as at the time of the ac- quisition, in circumstances in which all evidence pointed to the conclusion that at that time they had given no thought to the matter (see para [71]). (4) Given that in this case there was no evidence of any discussion between the parties as to the amount of the share that each was to have, the right question to be asked was what would be a fair share for each party having regard to the whole course of dealing between them in relation to the property. It did not follow from the fact that parties lived together in a house which they both regarded as their home that they shared the ownership of that house equally. A fair division of the sale of the property would be 60% to the man and 40% to the woman; an equal division would give insufficient weight to the disparity in the parties' financial contributions (see paras [72]-[74]). NOTES: Statutory provisions considered Law of Property Act 1925, s 53 Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Housing Act 1985, Part V, s 155 Housing and Planning Act 1986, s 2(3) Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, s 14 CASES-REF-TO: Carlton v Goodman [2002] EWCA Civ 545, [2002] 2 FLR 259, CA Drake v Whipp [1996] 1 FLR 826, CA Evans v Hayward [1995] 2 FLR 511, CA Eves v Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1338, [1975] 3 All ER 768, CA Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886, [1970] 3 WLR 255, (1970) FLR Rep 269, [1970] 2 All ER 780, HL Grant v Edwards and Another [1986] Ch 638, [1986] 3 WLR 114, [1987] 1 FLR 87, [1986] 2 All ER 426, CA Huntingford v Hobbs [1993] 1 FLR 736, CA Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset and Another [1991] AC 107, [1990] 2 WLR 867, [1990] 2 FLR 155, [1990] 1 All ER 1111, HL Marsh v von Sternberg [1986] 1 FLR 526, FD McFarlane v McFarlane [1972] NILR 59, CA (NI) McHardy and Sons (A Firm) v Warren and Another [1994] 2 FLR 338, CA Midland Bank plc v Cooke and Another [1995] 2 FLR 915, [1995] 4 All ER 562, CA Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777, [1969] 2 WLR 966, (1969) FLR Rep 555, [1969] 2 All ER 385, HL Saville v Goodall [1993] 1 FLR 755, CA Springette v Defoe [1992] 2 FLR 388, CA Stokes v Anderson [1991] 1 FLR 391, CA Turton v Turton [1988] 1 Ch 542, [1987] 3 WLR 622, [1988] 1 FLR 23, [1987] 2 All ER 641, CA Page 3 [2004] EWCA Civ 546, [2005] Fam 211, [2004] 2 FLR 669, [2004] Fam Law 569, [2004] Conv. 496 Walker v Hall [1984] FLR 126, CA Yaxley v Gotts and Gotts [2000] Ch 162, [1999] 3 WLR 1217, [1999] 2 FLR 941, [2000] 1 All ER 711, CA COUNSEL: Nicholas Francis QC and Christopher Wagstaffe for the appellant; David Walden-Smith for the respon- dent. JUDGMENT-READ: Cur adv vult PANEL: Chadwick, Mance, Scott Baker LJJ JUDGMENTBY-1: CHADWICK LJ JUDGMENT-1: CHADWICK LJ: [1] This is an appeal from an order made on 20 May 2003 by Her Honour Judge Hallon, sitting in the Bromley County Court, in proceedings brought under s 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appoint- ment of Trustees Act 1996 in relation to the proceeds of sale of property known as 35 Dickens Close, Hart- ley, Kent. The appeal requires the court to revisit, once again, the familiar question how the proceeds of property in which an unmarried couple have been living as husband and wife should be shared between them when the relationship comes to an end. The underlying facts [2] The property at 35 Dickens Close was purchased in April 1991 in the name of the appellant, Mr Allan Hiscock. At that date Mr Hiscock and the respondent, Mrs Elayne Oxley, had known each other for some 5 or 6 years. For much of that time his employment had required Mr Hiscock to reside in Kuwait; but, when he was in England on leave, they had lived together at 39 Page Close, Bean, near Dartford.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Land Law Jan 13
    LEVEL 6 - UNIT 9 – LAND LAW SUGGESTED ANSWERS – JANUARY 2013 Note to Candidates and Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key points students should have included in their answers to the January 2013 examinations. The suggested answers set out a response that a good (merit/distinction) candidate would have provided. The suggested answers do not for all questions set out all the points which students may have included in their responses to the questions. Students will have received credit, where applicable, for other points not addressed by the suggested answers. Students and tutors should review the suggested answers in conjunction with the question papers and the Chief Examiners’ reports which provide feedback on student performance in the examination. SECTION A Question 1 The decision of the Supreme Court in Kernott v Jones (2011) is the latest in a long line of judicial decisions seeking to establish the nature of implied trusts of the family home. Where cohabiting couples have considered the division of property on sale or the breakdown of the relationship and have expressed the nature of the trust, there can be little problem. An express trust of land will be recognised so long as the relevant formality requirements are satisfied (s53 Law of Property Act 1925): it is made in writing and signed by the settlor or settlors. It is often the case that such trusts appear on the face of the transfer of the property to the trustees. Where such an express trust is not found a resulting or a constructive trust may be implied.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharing Homes: a Discussion Paper
    The Law Commission (LAW COM No 278) SHARING HOMES A Discussion Paper Presented to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by the Lord High Chancellor by Command of Her Majesty November 2002 Cm xxxx The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Toulson, Chairman 1 Professor Hugh Beale QC Mr Stuart Bridge Professor Martin Partington CBE Judge Alan Wilkie, QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. This Discussion Paper was first published online on 18 July 2002. The text of this Discussion Paper is available on the Internet at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk 1 At the date this report was signed, the Chairman of the Law Commission was the Right Honourable Lord Justice Carnwath CVO. ii THE LAW COMMISSION SHARING HOMES A Discussion Paper CONTENTS Paragraph Page Executive Summary vi PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 The shared home 1.6 2 A property-based approach 1.23 6 PART II: THE CURRENT LAW 9 Introduction 2.1 9 Trusts of land 2.4 10 Legal and beneficial ownership of the shared home 2.10 11 Legal title – joint tenancy 2.12 11 Beneficial ownership- joint tenancy or tenancy in common 2.16 12 Resolution of disputes between trustees and beneficiaries 2.23 14 Dealings with third parties 2.27 15 Occupation of the shared home 2.32 17 Where a person has an interest under a trust of land 2.34 17 Matrimonial home rights 2.37 18 Orders regulating
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Common Intention Constructive Trusts in Stack V Dowden and Jones V Kernott – Should the Resulting Trusts Be Preferred?
    Rethinking the Common Intention Constructive Trusts in Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott – should the Resulting Trusts be preferred? by Yee Ching Leung Abstract Yee Ching Leung takes the two landmark cases, Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, as starting points to consider the new Common Intention Constructive Trust approach in dealing with the issue of how the beneficial interest of a property is to be shared between two separating cohabitants. The article analyses whether this new approach should be preferred over the traditional Resulting Trust approach. The author explains the two approaches and gives three arguments in support of the Resulting Trust approach. First, it provides a greater degree of certainty, which is crucial in property law. Secondly, the traditional approach is more coherent in principle when comparing to the Common Intention Constructive Trust approach. Thirdly, the author argues that the Resulting Trust approach would not leave the discretion of judges unconfined. Toward the end of the article, the author gives two brief replies to the critics of the Resulting Trust approach. However, the Common Intention Constructive Trust approach is now the law of England and whether the Resulting Trust approach will return remains to be seen. I. Introduction This article concerns the issue of how the beneficial interest of a property is to be shared between two separating cohabitants. Generally, the issue can be resolved by either an express trust or an express agreement. However, in a domestic context, it is common that cohabitants do not make explicit arrangements. Accordingly, the courts have to decide the issue when disputes arise during their separation.
    [Show full text]
  • Cohabitation: the Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown
    The Law Commission (LAW COM No 307) COHABITATION: THE FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF RELATIONSHIP BREAKDOWN Presented to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty July 2007 Cm 7182 £xx.xx The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Etherton, Chairman Mr Stuart Bridge Mr David Hertzell1 Professor Jeremy Horder Mr Kenneth Parker QC The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Mr Steve Humphreys. The Law Commission is located at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. The terms of this report were agreed on 3 July 2007. The text of this report is available on the Internet at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk 1 Mr David Hertzell was appointed a Law Commissioner with effect from 1 July 2007, in succession to Professor Hugh Beale QC, FBA. The terms of this report were agreed on 3 July 2007. ii THE LAW COMMISSION COHABITATION: THE FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF RELATIONSHIP BREAKDOWN TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 - INTRODUCTION 1 THIS REPORT 1 WHY IS THIS ISSUE IMPORTANT? 2 Demographic data and future projections 3 Public attitudes towards cohabitation 6 THE BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT 6 TERMS OF REFERENCE 7 THE CONSULTATION PAPER 9 The Consultation Paper’s provisional proposals in outline 9 THE CONSULTATION PROCESS 10 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 11 Recent decisions of the House of Lords 11 Recent research 12 Debate in Parliament and beyond 13 Child
    [Show full text]
  • The Search for a Legal Framework for the Family Home in Canada and Britain Conway, H
    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons Research Papers, Working Papers, Conference Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper Series Papers 2014 No Place Like Home: The eS arch for a Legal Framework for the Family Home in Canada and Britain Heather Conway Philip Girard Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/olsrps Recommended Citation Conway, Heather and Girard, Philip, "No Place Like Home: The eS arch for a Legal Framework for the Family Home in Canada and Britain" (2014). Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper Series. 25. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/olsrps/25 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Research Papers, Working Papers, Conference Papers at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper Series by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER SERIES Research Paper No. 39 Vol. 10/ Issue. 09/ (2014) No Place Like Home’: The Search for a Legal Framework for the Family Home in Canada and Britain Conway, H. & Girard, P. (2004). No place like home’: The search for a legal framework for the family home in Canada and Britain. Queen’s Law Journal, 30, 715-771. Heather Conway & Philip Girard Editors: Editor-in-Chief: Carys J. Craig (Associate Dean of Research & Institutional Relations and Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto) Production Editor: James Singh (Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto) James Singh (Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto – Production Editor) This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2434712 Further Information and a collection of publications about Osgoode Hall Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series can be found at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/JELJOUR_Results.cfm?form_name=journalbrowse&journal_id=722488 Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper No.
    [Show full text]
  • Resulting Or Constructive Trust: Does It Matter? Faizi V Tahir
    Resulting or Constructive Trust: Does it Matter? Faizi v Tahir [2019] EWHC 1627 (QB) Introduction Faizi v Tahir is part of a long line of confusing cases on non-express trusts of land.1 It presented particular difficulties because the relevant property was purchased as neither a joint home nor a commercial investment. With respect, however, this does not fully excuse the potential problems created by the judgments in omitting adequately to distinguish between resulting and constructive trusts. After outlining the facts and both judgments, this note seeks to analyse on what basis the decision was, and should have been, taken, and whether its correct basis truly matters. The Facts Faiz Faizi (“the claimant”) began to live at a Luton property in 2006. On his account, he was advised that he was unable to obtain a mortgage because of his then immigration status, so he and Mohammed Tahir (“the defendant”), whom he met through a mutual friend, agreed that the property would be purchased in the defendant’s name, with legal title to be transferred to the claimant at a future date. In reliance on this arrangement, according to the claimant, he paid the deposit, the purchase costs and (some of) the mortgage instalments, as well as financing and undertaking improvements (a garage conversion and a small extension) to the property. He blamed his slowness in seeking to have the property and the mortgage transferred to his name on delays with his British citizenship application. The claimant’s account, however, was resisted by the defendant, who asserted that he purchased the property to aid his own wife’s application for a UK residence visa.
    [Show full text]
  • The Remedial Constructive Trust – Fact Or Fiction” Queenstown, New Zealand 10 August 2014
    COMMENTARY ON LORD NEUBERGER’S “THE REMEDIAL CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST – FACT OR FICTION” QUEENSTOWN, NEW ZEALAND 10 AUGUST 2014 J D Heydon Lord Neuberger’s paper deals with its subject in admirable style. It is certainly learned. But it is also dashing. This is no surprise. The hand which wrote the paper can also be seen in the joint judgment of seven members of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC.1 In that case the Supreme Court favoured the view of the lamented Lord Templeman in Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid2 over its rivals. The judgment in the FHR European Ventures case is notable for three things at least. First, it dealt in a deft and scholarly way with a topic which has been controversial, sometimes bitterly controversial, for at least 150 years: whether a fiduciary who has taken a bribe is liable to the principal only as an equitable debtor or can be liable to restore the bribe or its proceeds in specie under a constructive trust. Secondly, the judgment was written in a style – brisk, brief and brilliant – quite beyond the powers of most Australian judges. Thirdly, despite the importance _______________________ 1 [2014] UKSC 45. 2 [1994] 1 AC 324. 2. and complexity of the issue and despite the fact that it was argued over three days, judgment was delivered less than four weeks after the close of argument. These are achievements which ought to make most Australian judges hang their heads in shame, though there have been exceptions to these strictures.
    [Show full text]
  • Yours, Mine, Or Ours? Charting a Course Through Equity's
    Yours, Mine, or Ours? Charting a Course Through Equity’s Determination of Domestic Proprietary Interests Kathrine Galloway ORCID: 0000-0002-8047-1210 Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements for an award of Doctor of Philosophy Submitted 24 March 2017 Melbourne Law School ABSTRACT Distributing proprietary interests between domestic heterosexual partners remains the purview of the courts of equity, using the trust. In answering the question: ‘Whose property is this?’ the courts are faced with the tension between a property law system designed for the market, and property claims arising from within a couple’s intimate lives. The law’s market orientation favours the party best able to explain their claim in market terms. Because of the gendered structures of society and the family, the process tends to favour the man. This prompts the question central to this thesis: Does equity have the capacity to determine domestic proprietary interests consistent with equality between men and women intimate partners in light of pervasive gender inequality? Existing analysis of intimate partner trusts predominantly suggests new redistributive mechanisms to resolve the problem of equality. Other work describes the law’s evolution towards more ‘familial’ approaches as ameliorating the unfairness of market norms applied to intimate relationships. This thesis adds to the literature by using relational theory to focus instead on equity’s existing property-based distributive framework, charting a course through the tensions inherent in the application of market principles to the intimate context. The tensions of individual and community, market and home, arise from the tenets of liberalism built into private law.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of English and Australian Constructive Trusts
    Denning Law Journal 2020 Vol 32 p 151-173 BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF THE FAMILY HOME: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ENGLISH AND AUSTRALIAN CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS Mark Pawlowski * James Brown** ABSTRACT The aim of this article is to review and critically analyse the English law relating to common intention constructive trusts in the context of the family home. In particular, it seeks to show how the English courts have addressed the question of establishing and quantifying the parties’ beneficial shares in both sole and joint ownership cases. The writers also seek to compare the English approach with the way in which such ques- tions have been answered by the Australian courts. The primary purpose of this comparison is to consider what lessons (if any) can be learnt from the Australian model. Key words: family home, constructive trust, beneficial ownership, common intention, presumption of equality, single regime, composite enquiry INTRODUCTION Much of English law regarding the imposition of a constructive trust in relation to the family home has developed in the context of sole ownership cases where legal title to the property is vested in one of the parties. In these cases, considerable confu- sion has persisted amongst the judiciary regarding the correct test to be applied in establishing beneficial entitlement (the acquisition question) and the method by which such entitlement should be assessed (the quantification question). In terms of acquiring a beneficial share, the House of Lords, in two landmark cases1 decided in the early 1970s, clarified the previous law by adopting a test based on common intention and detrimental reliance. These cases have provided the foundations for determining beneficial entitlement in single ownership cases under English law.
    [Show full text]
  • Yours, Mine, Or Ours? Charting a Course Through Equity’S Determination of Domestic Proprietary Interests
    Yours, Mine, or Ours? Charting a Course Through Equity’s Determination of Domestic Proprietary Interests Kathrine Galloway ORCID: 0000-0002-8047-1210 Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements for an award of Doctor of Philosophy Submitted 24 March 2017 Melbourne Law School ABSTRACT Distributing proprietary interests between domestic heterosexual partners remains the purview of the courts of equity, using the trust. In answering the question: ‘Whose property is this?’ the courts are faced with the tension between a property law system designed for the market, and property claims arising from within a couple’s intimate lives. The law’s market orientation favours the party best able to explain their claim in market terms. Because of the gendered structures of society and the family, the process tends to favour the man. This prompts the question central to this thesis: Does equity have the capacity to determine domestic proprietary interests consistent with equality between men and women intimate partners in light of pervasive gender inequality? Existing analysis of intimate partner trusts predominantly suggests new redistributive mechanisms to resolve the problem of equality. Other work describes the law’s evolution towards more ‘familial’ approaches as ameliorating the unfairness of market norms applied to intimate relationships. This thesis adds to the literature by using relational theory to focus instead on equity’s existing property-based distributive framework, charting a course through the tensions inherent in the application of market principles to the intimate context. The tensions of individual and community, market and home, arise from the tenets of liberalism built into private law.
    [Show full text]
  • Read Book Constructive and Resulting Trusts
    CONSTRUCTIVE AND RESULTING TRUSTS PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Charles Mitchell | 392 pages | 03 Mar 2010 | Bloomsbury Publishing PLC | 9781841139272 | English | Oxford, United Kingdom Constructive and Resulting Trusts PDF Book For example, when A transfers property to B, unless the transfer was made by father to child or by husband to wife, in the absence of any other evidence the law presumes that a resulting trust has been created for A. Free Practical Law trial. Oddly, the law is unclear as to whether or not a resulting trust is created if a person, instead of buying real property , transfers property he or she owns to another. The twelve essays challenge our preconceived ideas of these trusts by suggesting — often radically — new perspectives on how we should analyse the law Downloads Download data is not yet available. Constructive trusts are imposed by the court as an equitable remedy where it would be unconscionable for the other party to hold onto the property. Benham 2 Ch. Understanding trusts 3. Chambers News. Search within this book Rather, the courts are using fiduciary duties as a method of punishing the defendant; Alastair Hudson writes that they are "as concerned to punish the wrongdoer as to protect rights in property". A former solicitor, Nicola is also a fully qualified journalist. I am trying to establish the difference between a resulting trust and a constructive trust in the context of it arising and creating a beneficial interest in a property. A constructive trust normally gives a proprietary right to the beneficiary that can be enforced on any other person.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Lloyds Bank V Rosset Still Good Law? Matthew Mills*
    Single Name Family Home Constructive Trusts: Is Lloyds Bank v Rosset Still Good Law? Matthew Mills* Beneficial interests; Constructive trusts; Family home Relationship breakdown: who gets what? The breakdown of a loving relationship can cause both emotional and legal uncertainties. From a property law perspective, the key question is: who gets what? In most cases, the most valuable part of this question is: who gets the house? In the divorce context, for both marriages and civil partnerships, the answer to this question is resolved by statute: the courts are explicitly given a wide discretion to require one person to transfer property to another, to hold it on trust for another, or to vary the shares of a pre-existing trust.1 However, the answer to the question “who gets what” is much less regulated where the parties were unmarried but cohabited prior to the breakdown of their relationship. For real property, the answer depends on whether both parties to the relationship were registered legal owners of the property (a “joint name case”) or whether only one party was registered as a legal owner (a “single name case”). In joint name cases, the law is settled by Stack v Dowden2 and Jones v Kernott.3 The starting presumption is that both parties are entitled to a 50% share of the value of the property as tenants in common, unless this presumption can be displaced by evidence of an express agreement to vary those shares or an agreement inferred from the parties’ conduct in relation to the property. If such an agreement can be proved, then the court must quantify the intended shares by reference to the express or inferred agreement or, in the absence of any evidence as to the size of those shares, by reference to what “the court considers fair having regard to the whole course of dealing between them in relation to the property”.
    [Show full text]