Ratio Decidendi
Where a common intention to share beneficial ownership is established (even if the expressed reason for not putting the property in joint names is false), and the claimant acts to their detriment in reliance on that intention, a constructive trust will arise.
ข้อเท็จจริง
Mr Eves told his partner the house would be in his sole name only because she was under 21 (which was untrue). Relying on the implied promise of shared ownership, she made substantial contributions by doing heavy manual work on the property.
สรุปคำพิพากษา
The Court of Appeal held that Janet Eves was entitled to a beneficial share in the house under a common intention constructive trust. Although the property had been conveyed into Stuart Eves's sole name, his stated reason — that she was under 21 and so could not be on the title — carried the implication that, but for her age, the house would have been in joint names, evidencing a common intention that she should have an interest. She had relied on that understanding to her detriment by doing a great deal of heavy physical work on the property, including wielding a 14-lb sledgehammer to break up concrete and demolishing a shed, going well beyond what a partner would ordinarily do. Lord Denning MR (with Browne LJ and Brightman J) held that this detrimental reliance gave rise to a constructive trust and awarded her a one-quarter share. It is a leading example of the 'excuse' cases, in which a false reason for keeping the legal title in one name is treated as evidence of a common intention to share.
คำกล่าวสำคัญ
"The man's excuse for not putting the property in joint names carried with it the implicit promise that the property was to be regarded as jointly owned."
— Lord Denning MR
การอ้างอิงภายหลัง
Applied in Grant v Edwards [1986] on similar facts. Part of the line of authority on common intention constructive trusts developed further in Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Common Scenarios
Get Professional Help