Parties assisting defendant’s mother to purchase property — Parties divorcing — Whether claimant’s belief that property would be utilised for family’s benefit amounting to a constructive trust in her favour — Claim dismissed
The defendant’s mother purchased a property under the “right to buy” provisions of the Housing Act 1985. The majority of the purchase price was paid by her son (the defendant) and his wife (the claimant). In 1997, the claimant and defendant divorced, and the claimant registered a caution against the property. In 1999, the defendant’s mother died. By her will, she left the property in shares to her two sons.
In 2002, proceedings were instituted in order to determine the matter of the caution. The claimant contended that because the purchase price and the outgoings on the property had been paid for by both parties, the property was therefore held on trust for the benefit of the claimant and the defendant jointly.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
The point at issue was whether the parties had formed a common intention that the beneficial interest was to be jointly owned: see Lord Bridge’s comments in Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107. On the balance of probabilities, this was not the case. It appeared that the parties had discussed the purchase of the property in detail, and the claimant had undertaken the associated financial burden on the basis that the purchase constituted an investment for the benefit of the family as a whole. However, this did not address the question as to who actually owned the beneficial interest. The claimant had not adduced any evidence to suggest that she had understood herself to have a share in the beneficial interest. Witness statements in the divorce hearings demonstrated that the purchase of the flat was to be a joint exercise but did not amount to a general agreement that the acquisition of the property involved an intention of shared ownership. On the facts, there was no trust in the claimant’s favour, and the caution was to be vacated.
The claimant appeared in person; Helene Pines Richman (instructed by Hatten Wyatt, of Gravesend) appeared for the defendant.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
