Lecture notes
First Class Land Law Notes
- Module
- Land Law
- Institution
- University Of Bristol (UOB)
Secured a first-class in Land Law. can save you tons of time with all the readings.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
Trust1. Who are the parties?
2. Is it legal or equitable?
a. Legal if in compliance with (Formalies, LPA s53(1) & (2))
b. S34 of LPA 1925: 2 persons or more
3. Identification: Is there a beneficial interest via CT (or RT? If there two registered proprietors, can skip this process.
Difficulty in this area is that it has lot of cases and what we should do is to categorise them in my structure.
i. Resulting trust: Oxley v Hiscock
It has been the practice of claiming RT and CT in the alternative, but after Stack, it appears that the role of RT in determining ownership of shared home is
eliminated.
To prove RT, there must be contributions.
Direct financial contribution to the initial purchase is accepted.
Indirect contribution have not been regarded as giving rise to a RT
E.g. Gissing(paying household bills while others paid the mortgage) work only in CT.
Burns (domestic contributions count for nothing)
More Applicable to commercial context
ii. Common intention Constructive trust T: Rossett 1990
a. Express common intention: express agreement or detrimental reliance
The finding of an agreement or arrangement to share in this sense can only, I think, be based on evidence of express discussions between the
partners, however imperfectly remembered and however imprecise their terms may have been.
Once a finding is made, show that he or she has acted to his or her detriment or significantly altered his or her position in reliance on the
agreement in order
The detrimental reliance in express common intention has a requirement of “referable”, so not any conducts can be considered.
The court have been generous in the interpretation of express common intention requirement
They are prepared to treat excuses for not putting one party name on the document as an evidence of express common intention
Grant v Edwards 1986 :
She had acted to her detriment by making substantial contributions to the household expenses and raising the child and that enabled the D to keep paying
mortgages
Husband made an excuse that sole name may affect future separation
Lord Nourse standard: “conduct on which the woman could not reasonably have been expected to embark unless she was to have an interest in the
house.”
Held: Mrs Grant was entitled to half of the beneficial interest under a constructive trust.
Eves v Eves : stripped the wallpaper and painted woodwork including wielding a 14lb sledgehammer.
She did much more than many wives would do
Held: Held: entitled to beneficial interest.
Curran v Collins 2015 : Fact sensitive exercise
A pair of cohabitating couple. All properties were registered in the husband’s name and the wife did not make contribution to the purchases.
Held: no entitlement to any beneficial interest
“Overarching all these points is the lack of detrimental reliance.
b. Implied common intention
“situation direct contributions to the purchase price by the partner who is not the legal owner, whether initially or by
payment of mortgage instalments, will readily justify the inference necessary to the creation of a constructive trust. But, as I
read the authorities, it is at least extremely doubtful whether anything less will do.”
Gissing v Gissing 1971 :
no initial contribution that is referable to acquisition of the house and absence of an express agreement so the court can’t infer/ imply the common
intention more than a intention to share the “day-to-day expenses of the household”
“…..The court is not entitled to infer a common intention to this effect from the mere fact that she provided chattels for joint use in the new
matrimonial home
Burns v Burns [1984]
Ordinart Domestic tasks will not give rise to inferred common intention.
Similar to Gissing
Mrs. Burns worked part-time. as well She looked after the children & the house. She paid rates and bills and decorated. After 19 years the relationship
broke down.
C.f. Grant: no excuse was made.
Further raise the bar by saying the conduct needs to be referable to be taken into consideration
if a payment cannot be said to be, in a real sense, referable to the acquisition of the house it is difficult to see how, in such a case as the present, it can
base a claim for an interest in the house.
Held: she does not have a substantial contribution to the family expenses and thus no implied common intention too.
Pettit v Pettit [1970] AC 777
The husband made no contribution to initial purchase but only add value by making temporary decorations,
The implied agreement standard by Lord Bridge in Rosset was criticised setting the bar too high.
these words may set the first hurdle 'rather too high in certain respects', (per Lady Hale in Stack v Dowden
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller kingsumchiu. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £6.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
66475 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now