Drake v Whipp: CA 30 Nov 1995

The parties, an unmarried cohabiting couple, disputed their respective shares in a property held in the man’s sole name. Both had made direct contributions both to the purchase of a barn and to its expensive conversion into a home. The plaintiff appealed against a finding that she had only a 14.9% interest on a resulting trust, in the house she and the defendant had occupied together. The property had been purchased for andpound;61,000 of which she had contributed andpound;24,000, with later additional contributions to conversion works. She complained that working on a resulting trust, the costs of acquisition were given undue emphasis.
Held: A beneficial interest in a family home could be presumed from the intention of the parties and their acting in detriment. There was a constructive trust. There was undisputed evidence that she was to have an interest in the property, and she had acted to further that intention and to her detriment. The appeal was allowed, and her interest set at one third. ‘it is not easy to reconcile every judicial utterance in this well-travelled area of the law. A potent source of confusion, to my mind, has been suggestions that it matters not whether the terminology used is that of the constructive trust, to which the intention, actual or imputed, of the parties is crucial, or that of the resulting trust which operates on a presumed intention of the contributing party in the absence of rebutting evidence of actual intention.’
Peter Gibson LJ, Lord Justice Hirst and Mr Justice Forbes
Times 19-Dec-1995, [1996] 2 FCR 296, [1995] EWCA Civ 25, (1996) 28 HLR 531, [1996] CLY 5780
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLloyds Bank plc v Rosset HL 29-Mar-1990
The house had been bought during the marriage but in the husband’s sole name. The plaintiff’s charge secured the husband’s overdraft. The bank issued possession proceedings. Mr Rosset had left, but Mrs Rosset claimed, as against the bank an interest . .
CitedDyer v Dyer 27-Nov-1988
Where property is purchased by one person in the name of another there is a presumption that a resulting trust is created: ‘The clear result of all the cases, without a single exception is that the trust of a legal estate, whether freehold, copyhold . .

Cited by:
CitedOxley v Hiscock CA 6-May-2004
oxley_hiscockCA2004
The parties were not married, but had brought together their resources to purchase a home in the name of one of them. Nothing had been said about the respective shares on which the property was to be held.
Held: The shares were to be assessed . .
CitedStack v Dowden HL 25-Apr-2007
The parties had cohabited for a long time, in a home bought by Ms Dowden. After the breakdown of the relationship, Mr Stack claimed an equal interest in the second family home, which they had bought in joint names. The House was asked whether, when . .
CitedJones v Kernott SC 9-Nov-2011
Unmarried Couple – Equal division displaced
The parties were unmarried but had lived together. They now disputed the shares in which they had held the family home. It had been bought in joint names, but after Mr Kernott (K) left in 1993, Ms Jones (J) had made all payments on the house. She . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.80130