Huntingford v Hobbs: CA 1 Mar 1992

The parties lived together in a property transferred to the woman after her divorce. That house was sold and the defendant contributed the capital. There was a joint mortgage, but the plaintiff alone had an income from which to make payments. The plaintiff later contributed the cost of an extension.
Held: The property had been transferred into the joint names of the parties by a transfer which contained no declaration of trust in express terms, but which did include a declaration as to the power of the survivor to give a receipt for capital money arising on a disposition of the land. The primary submission advanced on the appeal was that a transfer in that form was to be construed as a declaration by the parties that they held the property for themselves as joint tenants. There was sufficient evidence of a common intention that the property should be shared. The plaintiff’s assumption of responsibility for all the mortgage repayments amounted to a capital cash contribution. The property was to be treated as having been acquired by the parties as a joint venture, and held in proportion to the contributions, not just the actual capital contributions. The declaration was insufficient to amount to an express declaration of trust.


Lord Justice Dillon, Lord Justice Steyn and Sir Christopher Slade


[1993] 1 FLR 736


England and Wales


CitedSpringette v Defoe CA 1-Mar-1992
Property was purchased in joint names, but with no express declaration of the beneficial interests. The couple had lived together for a short time as joint tenants of the local authority. They were able to purchase at a substantial discount from the . .

Cited by:

CitedOxley v Hiscock CA 6-May-2004
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 . .
CitedEvans v Hayward CA 1-Jun-1992
The property had been bought in joint names at a discounted price under a ‘right to buy’ conferred by the Housing Act 1985; but where the discount was substantially attributable to the plaintiff’s former occupation as local authority tenant. The . .
CitedCurley v Parkes CA 25-Oct-2004
The claimant sought leave to an appeal an order dismissing his claim for an interest in the property owned by his former partner and in which they had co-habited. This was the second such house. He sought an interest under a resulting trust, having . .
CitedStack 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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.189974