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 declaring that the plaintiff and the defendant were to hold the proceeds of sale of the property ‘upon trust for themselves as joint tenants’ concludes the question of the respective beneficial interests of the two parties in so far as that declaration of trust, on its true construction, exhaustively declares the beneficial interests. Severance of a beneficial joint tenancy results in a beneficial tenancy in common in equal shares.
Lord Justice Slade said: ‘In a case where the legal estate in property is conveyed to two or more persons as joint tenants, but neither the conveyance nor any other written document contains any express declaration of trust concerning the beneficial interests in the property (as would be required for an express declaration of this nature by virtue of s 53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925), the way is open for persons claiming a beneficial interest in it or its proceeds of sale to rely on the doctrine of ‘resulting, implied or constructive trusts’ (see s 53(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925). In particular, in a case such as that, a person who claims to have contributed to the purchase price of the property which stands in the name of himself and another can rely on the well-known presumption of equity that a person who has contributed a share of the purchase price of property is entitled to a corresponding proportionate beneficial interest in the property by way of implied or resulting trust (see, for example, Pettitt v Pettitt  AC 777 at 813-814, per Lord Upjohn). . . .’
Slade, Purchase LJJ, Sir Roualeyn Cumming-Bruce
 Fam 106,  EWCA Civ 15,  1 FLR 513,  2 WLR 236
Trustee Act 1925
England and Wales
Cited – Wilson v Wilson CA 1963
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 – Pink v Lawrence CA 1977
Buckley LJ (with whom the other members of the Court agreed) said that: ‘Where there is an express declaration of trust, the doctrine of constructive trusts cannot be referred to contradict the expressly declared trust. The doctrine of constructive . .
rejected – Bedson v Bedson CA 1965
The parties, a married couple disputed the shares in which the matrimonial home, formerly held by them as joint tenants would be held after severance o that joint tenancy.
Held: The wife was entitled to a half share in the property.
Cited – Stack v Dowden CA 13-Jul-2005
The parties purchased a property together. The transfer contained a survivorship restriction but no declaration of the beneficial interests. The judge had held the property to be held as tenants in commn on equal shares.
Held: In a case where . .
Cited – Clarke v Harlowe ChD 12-Aug-2005
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, . .
Cited – Pudner and Another v Pudner CA 27-Feb-2006
The parties challenged the validity of a will, and claimed the house by survivorship. The house had been conveyed into joint names, but the solicitors on registration had declared it a tenancy in common. This was said to have been a mistake.
Cited – Stack 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 November 2021; Ref: scu.181824