Trusts Of Home, Licence And Proprietary Estoppel

Question 1

Gissing v Gissing

Answer 1

Contrary intention inferred from conduct may include where mortgage contributions have been made.

Question 2

Burn v Burn

Answer 2

Evidence is needed of a payment or payments by the plaintiff is it is being relied upon to show contrary evidence inferred from conduct.

Question 3

Lloyds Bank v Rosset

Answer 3

For contrary intention inferred from conduct there must have been an agreement, arrangement or understanding at the time of the purchase.

Question 4

Eves v Eves

Answer 4

Male partner told girlfriend that she was only not on the legal title because she was under 21, enough to be an understanding which shows contrary intention.

Question 5

Grant v Edwards

Answer 5

Girlfriend was told that the only reason property was not vested in joint names was that she was in divorce proceedings, excuses suggest that there was common intention.

Question 6

Stack v Dowden

Answer 6

Law has moved on from Lloyds Bank v Rosset - contrary intention could be shown by significant manual labour and in kind contributions.

Question 7

Midland Bank v Cooke

Answer 7

Equality is equity - 6.5% direct contribution was quantified at 50%. Can fall back on maxim where there is no contrary evidence.

Question 8

Oxley v Hiscock

Answer 8

Each is entitled to the share which the court considers fair having regard to the whole course of dealing between them in relation to the property.

Question 9

Binions v Evans

Answer 9

Constructive trust isn’t created only on the basis of knowledge, but if conscience of a third party was affected the court may impose a trust.

Question 10

Gillet v Holt

Answer 10

Claimant need not prove that the representation was irrevocable.

Question 11

Thorner v Major

Answer 11

Must have relied on the representation to their detriment.

Question 12

Goodman v Gallant

Answer 12

If there is an express trust, it is binding and final.

Question 13

Springette v Defoe

Answer 13

Couple bought property together, woman had reduction under right to by scheme, this was seen as a monetary contribution under balance sheet approach.

Question 14

Cox v Jones

Answer 14

Woman negotiated reduction in price of property, it was taken into account when deciding equitable interests but was not seen as monetary contribution as in Springette v Defoe.