The parties lived together. They acquired between them several properties of which the last was declared to be held as joint tenants. The relationship broke down. The parties now sought a declaration as to the destination of the proceeds of sale, the man having contributed the vast part of the costs. She replied that the money had been spent when the relationship was continuing, and that no principle of equitable accounting applied.
Held: The express declaration of trust was the starting point and was conclusive as to the beneficial interests in the absence of fraud or mistake. It was possible to vary the trusts after acquisition, but there was no reason to accept such a variation had occurred here. ‘In the ordinary case of cohabitation the common purpose of the implied trust subsists whilst the relationship subsists. During that period whilst the ordinary arrangements for the discharge of the outgoings subsist there is no breach or failure by any one of the parties to honour any obligation owed to the other. Thus in the usual case there is no room or reason for equitable accounting.’ Ms Clarke had not failed to do anything she had promised to do or had been asked to do, and ‘there is no reason why a court of equity should now compel her to contribute to the cost of the improvements and there is no room for any equitable accounting.’
Judges:
Behrens QC
Citations:
[2005] EWHC B20 (Ch)
Links:
Statutes:
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bernard v Josephs CA 30-Mar-1982
The court considered the division of proceeds of sale of a house bought by an unmarried couple.
Held: Where the trusts for which a property was purchased have been concluded, the house should be sold.
Griffiths LJ said: ‘the fact that . .
Cited – Pettitt v Pettitt HL 23-Apr-1969
A husband and wife disputed ownership of the matrimonial home in the context of the presumption of advancement.
Lord Reid said: ‘These considerations have largely lost their force under present conditions, and, unless the law has lost its . .
Cited – Gissing v Gissing HL 7-Jul-1970
Evidence Needed to Share Benefical Inerests
The family home had been purchased during the marriage in the name of the husband only. The wife asserted that she had a beneficial interest in it.
Held: The principles apply to any case where a beneficial interest in land is claimed by a . .
Cited – Goodman v Gallant CA 30-Oct-1985
The court reviewed the conflicting authorities with regard to the creation of trusts and held that the overwhelming preponderance of authority was that, in the absence of any claim for rectification or rescission, provisions in a conveyance . .
Cited – Leake (formerly Bruzzi) v Bruzzi CA 1974
The house was purchased in the husband’s sole name with a declaration of trust in favour of the husband and wife, holding the property as joint tenants. The wife had left the matrimonial home, and the husband had paid all the mortgage instalments . .
Cited – in Re Pavlou (A Bankrupt) ChD 17-Mar-1993
Mr and Mrs Pavlou bought a house for andpound;12,500 with a mortgage of andpound;9,500. After the husband left, the wife remained in sole occupation, and paid the mortgage instalments as they fell due. Thirteen years after the marriage Mrs Pavlou . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Trusts
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.237287