Unit 6 cases

• Crabb v Crabb (1834)

  presumption of advancement

  • father to son? Yes
  • the court assumes, in the absence of other evidence , that a transfer was by way of gift if father to son
• Eves v Eves [1975]

  Express common intention

  • he said she only wasn’t on the title because she was under 21.
  • was it a joint shared intention?
  • more of an excuse
  • but the court said it was enough for express common intention

  Detrimental reliance

  • building work including wielding a 14IB hammer
  • yes, she was acting to her detriment
• Hudson v Hathaway [2022]


  Detrimental Reliance

  • need to find detrimental reliance in all common intention constructive trusts (CICTs)
• Crabb v Arun DC [1976]

  Remedies

  • Scarman J “the minimum equity to do justice“
• Pillmoor v Miah (2019)

  Court found that there was nothing from conduct from which an agreement that Ruma shared the beneficial ownership of the property could be inferred

  • Ruma left family finances to her husband, pointing to a lack of understanding of beneficial ownership -30 year relationship didn’t count for anything
• Lloyds bank v Rosset [1991]

  Direct contributions

  • Lord Bridge “direct contributions (financial) necessary to the creation of a constructive trust. Doubtful whether anything less will do…”
• Stack and Dowden [2007]

  Laid down the doctrine of common intention constructive trust (CICT) which applies to the property of unwed couples

  • The property was held in beneficially unequal shares
  • “whole course of dealing“ Baroness Hale
  • holistic approach
  • 65/35 to the lady
• Patel v Mirza [2016]

  Agreement amounted to conspiracy to commit the offence of insider dealing. Inside info didnt materialise and illegal act wasn’t committed

  • Patel was successful in reclaiming the money, despite it having been paid to mirza pursuant to criminal activities. A claimant will not be prevented from enforcing his claim to property because it was for an illegal act unless against public policy or disproportionate
• Jones v Kernott [2011]

  Under a CICT, if it is impossible to infer any actual intention as to the parties’ respective shares, their intention will be imputed by fairness according to their course of conduct

  • parties bought property in joint name, he lived out, she lived there with their children.
  • held 90/10 unequal share in her favour
  • their intentions had changed since their separation
• Pascoe v Turner [1979]


  Detrimental reliance - is spending money on home improvement enough?

  • yea. She spent 1/4 of her income on it
  • he left and told her the house was hers
  • only fair to compel the appellant to give effect to his promise and her expectations
• Grant v Edwards [1986]

  A specious excuse to not register the name of one’s partner is evidence of common intention that she should have a beneficial share in the property

  • Detrimental reliance - this must be “conduct on which (the non-legal owner) could not reasonably have been expected to embark unless she was to have an interest in the house.”
• Oxley v Hiscock [2005]


  Under a CICT, in the absence of an express or implied agreement the beneficial shares of the co-habiting parties will be determined by their whole course of dealing in respect to the property, including financial and non-financial contributions to its upkeep