CICTs

Question 1

Appleton v Appleton

Answer 1

Lord Denning:

“what is reasonable and fair”

Question 2

Two Stages

Answer 2

Acquisition 
Rosset - single legal owner
Stack v Dowden - joint legal owners
Quantification 
Stack v Dowden  flexible

Question 3

Westdeutsche

Answer 3

‘Equity operates on the conscience of the legal owner’

Question 4

Rosset: Detrimental Reliance

Answer 4

1. any time prior (exceptionally during) acquisition
   a) an express agreement the the property be shared beneficially
   b) detrimental reliance
2. Direct contributions to purchase price, initially or by mortgage payments

Question 5

Ursula Riniker

Common Intention

Answer 5

Gissing moved the goalposts

non-financial or indirect contributions could equal a detriment

Question 6

Anna Lawson

Family Home

Answer 6

Eves v Eves
Wielding a 14lb sledgehammer was not expected by a woman
General decoration and design is expected thus is not a detriment
Burns v Burns
no “real” “substantial” financial contributions meant they were not entitled to a beneficial share

Question 7

John Mee Jones v Kernott

Answer 7

radical judicial law-making for cohabitants

Question 8

John Mee Inference

Answer 8

Lady Hale (scope is wide) 
A must understand B's relevant intention and A belief is reasonable
e.g. Ms Kernott reasonably understood Mr Jones actions and statements intended to differ benficial interests {objective - conduct)

Question 9

John Mee Imputation

Answer 9

No actual intention can be deduced from actions or statements (what they would have intended)
“deduced objectively”

Quantification stage -
“impossible” to determine proportions of common intention
Should this be applied to acquisition stage?

Question 10

Grant v Edwards

Answer 10

Reliance on a lie

Question 11

Geary v Rankine

Answer 11

Business ventures unlikely sufficient

Question 12

Heavy labour

Answer 12

Eves v Eves

Cooke V Head

Question 13

Culliford v Thorpe

Answer 13

Building work

Question 14

Le Foe

Answer 14

indirect (non-fincial) contrinutions will not suffice

Question 15

Gissing

Answer 15

reasonable belief non-legal owner was to have a share

Question 16

Origins

Answer 16

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Married Women’s property Act 1882, s17

Pettitt v Pettitt
Gissing v Gissing

Claims failed but possible non-legal owner to have beneficial interest under a constructive trust

Question 17

Cohabiting

Answer 17

ONS Families and Housing 2017
3.3million cohab couples

Lersch + Vidal
8% homes in sole owneship

Civil Partnerships Act 2004
Marriage (same sex couples) Act 2013

Question 18

Development of Quantification

Answer 18

Springette v Defoe 
proportions based on resulting trust
Midland Bank plc v Chester 
Discretionary/flexible approach 
Oxley v Hiscock 
Entire course of dealing (respect to property)

Question 19

Types of Intention

Answer 19

1. actual/subjective intention
2. inferred intention objectively deduced by actions and statements
3. Imputed intention attributed to parties (no actual intention deduced y actions etc.)
   would have intended

Question 20

Common intention is…

Answer 20

“ambulatory”

Question 21

Law Commission: CICT issues

Answer 21

CICT is rigid and difficult to apply leads to unfairness. Time consuming and expensive uncertainty and underlying principles (hard to predict outcomes).

1. dependence on criteria is arbitrary in everyday life
2. failure to respond to parties’ interdependence
   e. g. economic position after seperation
3. individual assets

Question 22

Law Commission: CICT Reform

Answer 22

1. respondant has retained a benefit
2. applicant has economic disadvantage …
   due to contributions they have made

Question 23

Stack Presumption

Answer 23

Joint tenants have equal beneficial shares unless expressed otherwise

Single owner presumed to have entirety of beneficial shares

Question 24

Reform Factors

Answer 24

1. welfare of minor
2. finacial needs
3. extent of future resources
4. children living with parties
5. party conduct (contributions)

Question 25

Pettitt v Pettitt 1971

Lord Diplock

Answer 25

common enough…for husbands and wives to decorate and to make improvements in the family home themselves with no other intention than to indulge in what is now a “popular hobby”

Husband
lay a new lawn, build a fitted wardrobe
Wife
shop, cook, bath children

Impossible to impute…any common intention that these domestic activities… have any effect upon the existing proprietary rights…

It is only in the bitterness.. by the break-up of the marriage that so bizarre a notion would enter their heads.”

Question 26

Midland Bank v Cooke

Waite LJ

Answer 26

“I would therefore hold that positive evidence that the parties neither discussed nor intended any agreement as to the proportions of their beneficial interest does not preclude the court, on general equitable principles, from inferring one”

Stages:
Non-legal owner successfully asserts beneficial interest
by direct contribution, to determine (in the absence of express evidence of intention) what proportions the parties must be assumed to have intended for their beneficial ownership.
(whole course of dealings)

Original proportion = 6.47% Outcome = 50%

Question 27

Pettitt v Pettitt 1970

Answer 27

Mrs Pettitt inherited a house in which her and her husband lived. He spent £800 on repairs and redecoration of the property. She sold the house in 1961 and purchased another property which was conveyed into her name alone. There was some money left from the sale which she gave to her husband to purchase a car. They lived in the new house for four years and then divorced. He claimed that he had a beneficial interest in the property based on improvements made to new house. He estimated he had spent £723 on the property and claimed to be entitled to £1,000 from the proceeds of sale.
Husband = no beneficial interest

Question 28

Gissing v Gissing 1971

Answer 28

Husband paid mortgage and gave wife an allowance. Wife paid for furniture and clothing etc. Did not constitute as a financial contribution. No beneficial interest, despite her and her son living there until the divorce.

Question 29

Rosset

Facts

Answer 29

Mr Rosset became entitled to a substantial sum of money under a Swiss Trust fund. He wished to use the money to purchase a family home. Mrs Rosset found the property in question which was a derelict farmhouse requiring extensive modernisation and improvements. Mr Rosset liked the farmhouse and purchased it with money from the Swiss trust fund. In accordance with the terms of the trust fund, the property was conveyed into Mr Rosset’s name alone on 17th Dec 1982. Mr Rosset arranged an overdraft facility with Lloyds Bank of £15,000 to cover the improvements needed for the farmhouse this overdraft was secured by a charge on the property which was registered on 7th Feb 1983. Mrs Rosset made no financial contribution to the purchase price but carried out supervision of the builders, planning of the renovation works and a substantial amount of redecoration of the farmhouse. Mrs Rosset was allowed into possession of the property prior to exchange of contracts to commence the renovation. The overdraft limit was later raised to £18,000 and this was exceeded. The bank then commenced proceedings for possession. Mrs Rosset sought to defeat the possession by claiming to be entitled to a beneficial interest under a constructive trust which became an overriding interest under s.70(1)(g) by reason of her occupation.

Question 30

Rosset (HoL)

Lord Bridge

Answer 30

“It was common ground that Mrs. Rosset was extremely anxious that the new matrimonial home should be ready for occupation before Christmas if possible. In these circumstances it would seem the most natural thing in the world for any wife, in the absence of her husband abroad, to spend all the time she could spare and to employ any skills she might have, such as the ability to decorate a room, in doing all she could to accelerate progress of the work quite irrespective of any expectation she might have of enjoying a beneficial interest in the property.”

Question 31

Stack v Dowden Failed to Remedy the Law

Answer 31

Lord Walker:

Whether or not Lord Bridge’s observation was justified in 1990, in my opinion the law has moved on, and your Lordships should move it a little more in the same direction, while bearing in mind that the Law Commission may soon come forward with proposals which, if enacted by Parliament, may recast the law in this area.

Question 32

Curran v Collins

Answer 32

claimant tried to claim no detrimental reliance was needed, but Lewison LJ said- ‘the need for detrimental reliance is still essential.’ (shows for sole name cases, we have not moved away from Rosset)

Question 33

Jones v Kernott

Answer 33

Supported decision in Stack v Dowden
2 SC decisions within such short time frame - so unusual (only 3 years apart)

CA - reversed to 50:50, followed Stack v Dowden that not enough evidence had been shown to move away from the starting point of joint beneficial ownership

Supreme Court acknowledged that common intention can change over time therefore being apart for 14 years was enough to impute the common intention that share split should differ - for ‘fairness’

90:10 in favour of Jones as needed to consider change of circumstances
SC took opportunity to address criticisms - defensive

Question 34

Stack v Dowden: Factors

Answer 34

1. advice/discussions at time of transfer
2. home acquired in joint names?
3. reasons why survivor was authorised to give a receipt for capital
4. purpose home acquired
5. nature of relationship
6. children? responsibility of home?
7. purchase financed?
8. arrangement of finances
9. household expenses