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

Lewin at [10-085] explains that the doctrine of common intention constructive rather than resulting trust will now determine most disputes as to the beneficial ownership of property:

“There is no longer any scope for the application of resulting trust principles alone where one person makes a financial contribution to property purchased in the name of another where the parties intend to live together. As Lord Walker said in Stack v Dowden:435

“In a case about beneficial ownership of a matrimonial or quasi-matrimonial home (whether registered in the names of one or two legal owners) the resulting trust should not in my opinion operate as a legal presumption, although it may (in an updated form which takes account of all significant contributions, direct or indirect, in cash or kind) happen to be reflected in the parties’ common intention.”

That paragraph goes on to explain that there is still scope for a presumption of resulting trust in the commercial as opposed to domestic context, and that would apply where parties, although having a familial relationship, brought an investment property together, see Laskar v Laskar [2008] EWCA Civ 347 at [17]. In Marr v Collie [2017] UKPC 17 at [48]–[49], Lord Kerr said that the question whether the resulting trust analysis applies in the context of an investment bought by connected parties in joint names is dependent on the circumstances, in particular whether the acquisition is associated with a mutual commitment of the parties to the future and will depend on the evidence.

Mr Qureshi did not contend that any different approach should be taken to determining the beneficial ownership of money in a bank account.