BL-2023-000167 - [2025] EWHC 1976 (Ch)

The relevant legal principles are set out in Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432 and Jones v Kernott [2012] 1 AC 776, and were helpfully recently summarised by Deputy Master Hansen in Fattal v Fattal [2022] EWHC 950 (Ch) at [81]:

“(i)

Where there is sole legal ownership the starting point is sole beneficial ownership. The onus is upon the person seeking to show that the beneficial ownership is different from the legal ownership. So in sole ownership cases it is upon the non-owner to show that he has any interest at all: Stack v Dowden at §56;

(ii)

The conclusion that equity follows the law can, however, be displaced by showing that the parties had a different common intention when the property was first acquired or that they formed a different common intention at a later date, providing of course there is detrimental reliance;

(iii)

This displacing common intention may be express or inferred ("deduced objectively from their conduct"): Jones v Kernott at §51 per Lord Walker and Baroness Hale;

(iv)

The relevant intention of each party is the intention which was reasonably understood by the other party to be manifested by that person's words or 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: Jones v Kernott at §51(3);

(v)

Each case will turn on its own facts. The search is to ascertain the parties' shared intentions, actual, inferred or imputed, with respect to the property in the light of their whole course of conduct in relation to it;

(vi)

Many more factors than financial contributions may be relevant to divining the parties' true intentions, including any advice or discussions at the time of the transfer which cast light upon their intentions then; the reasons why the home was acquired in one of their sole names; the purpose for which the home was acquired; the nature of the parties' relationship; how the purchase was financed, both initially and subsequently; how the parties arranged their finances, whether separately or together or a bit of both; how they discharged the outgoings on the property and their other household expenses;

(vii)

The express or inferred common intention usually will also determine the size of the shares of the co-owners. The court should give effect to the intention thus discovered. If, however, there is no evidence to this effect, the court may impute an intention so as to ensure that the co-owners obtain that share which the court considers fair having regard to the whole course of dealing between them and the property.”

So far as concerns detriment or detrimental reliance, in Hudson v Hathway [2022] EWCA Civ 1648 Lewison LJ emphasised the importance of establishing detrimental reliance even in cases where there has been an express agreement:

“in the absence of signed writing, detrimental reliance remains a key component in establishing a common intention constructive trust.”

See at [76], [128] and [153].

As explained in Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210 at p232, (cited with approval in Hudson v. Hathaway at [154]), detrimental reliance: