express, resulting and constructive trusts of land

Lloyds Bank v Rosset

Resulting trust = direct contribution to purchase price

Constructive trust = express common intention + detrimental reliance

Resulting trusts: Lloyds Bank v Rosset; Dyer v Dyer

RT’s only arise from purchase price contribution; indirect contributions don’t count

Express Common Intention Constructive Trust formula

express agreement/discussion between parties + detrimental reliance

Express Common Intention Constructive Trust formula caselaw

Grant v Edwards (name kept off deeds + significant contribution to household bills + childcare relying on assurance)

Inferred Common intention constructive trusts requirement

common intention + inferrence from conduct or contributions - mortgage repayments, paying bills, pooling finances, improving property (post-Rosset domestic duties alone)

in joint legal owners, how to justify unequal shares? per Stack v Dowden

Stack v Dowden - separate finances

in joint legal owners, how to justify unequal shares? per Jones v Kernott

can change over time if parties’ intnetions diverged (court may impute based on fairness)

in joint legal owners, how to justify unequal shares? per Laskar v Laskar

investment property between family; contribution-based

sole legal owner share quantification; express agreement case

Lloyds v rosset - share stipulated in agreement

sole legal owner share quantification; inferred agreement

only direct financial contributions count
Oxley v Hiscock - ‘having regard ot the whole course of dealing’

Grant v Edwards - 50% for indirect contribution

Stack v Dowden precedents

Presumption of equity follows the law, joint legal ownership = joint beneficial ownership (domestic contexts) BUT can be displaced by evidence of distinct common intention

Oxley v Hiscock precedent

Courts must take into account ‘the whole course of dealing’ when there is no evidence of discussion between parties concerning the extent of their beneficial interests.