Property disputes between cohabitants, efficacy/appropriateness of equitable claims
“I think that the time has come to accept that there is no difference in outcome, in cases of
this nature [regarding the family home] whether the true analysis lies in constructive trust or
in proprietary estoppel.”
(Per Chadwick LJ in Oxley v Hiscock [2004] EWCA Civ 546)
Critically analyse, in the light of this statement, the similarities and differences
between common intention constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel in relation to
unmarried cohabitees claiming an interest in the family home.
Is either method suitable for determining such disputes?
Introduction
Opening statement: This essay will….. analyze constructive trusts / PE to examine the
extent at which they give rise to the same outcome with regard to unmarried cohabitants
claiming interests in the family home and whether or not these remain suitable for
determining such disputes.
Define:
- Common intention constructive trusts –
o They are implied trusts which…:
o “constructive trusts arise by the operation of law whenever the circumstances
are such that it would be unconscionable for the owner of property (usually
but not necessarily the legal estate) to assert his beneficial interest in the
property” – Lord Millet in Parason finance v DB Thakerer
- Proprietary estoppel:
o The doctrine of proprietary estoppel is another method in which a person may
become entitled to an equitable interest in property where there is absence of
the appropriate formalities.
Both are examples of Equity acting to prevent the owner of property from benefiting from
unconscionable conduct. Both enable the claimant to establish an equitable interest in land
without the usual written formalities (s 53(1) (b) LPA 1925, s 2(5) LPA (MP) 1989.)
Academia?
- “there is no difference in outcome” - Chadwick LJ in Oxley v Hiscock
Structure?
POINT ONE – COMMON INTENTION CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS AND SUITABILITY?:
Common intention constructive trusts:
- “constructive trusts arise by the operation of law whenever the circumstances are
such that it would be unconscionable for the owner of property (usually but not
necessarily the legal estate) to assert his beneficial interest in the property” – Lord
Millet in Parason finance v DB Thakerer
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 rhiannaryan1. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £4.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
