Gissing v Gissing [1971] A.C. 886
Family law – Matrimonial home – Spouses
Facts
The parties married in their early twenties and the wife worked throughout the marriage as part of a printing company. The husband finished with the army when the wife found a role for him as a printer in the company she worked for. He did well and bought a house in his name, which they both lived before he left to live with someone else. The house purchased was based on the majority of the finance being a mortgage and the rest coming by way of a loan from the printing company. The husband paid the mortgage, gave his wife a living allowance each week and paid for holidays. The wife paid for furniture for the property and her and their son’s clothing. When he left, the wife remained in the house and the husband paid the mortgage. When the divorce was granted the order for maintenance was significantly reduced. The trial judge found that the husband was entitled to possession and the Court of Appeal reversed that decision. The husband appealed.
Issue
The court had to consider whether the wife held any right in the property or whether this solely vested in to the husband.
Decision/Outcome
The court allowed the husband’s appeal. It was found that the wife had not made a contribution to gaining the title to the matrimonial property and this prevented the court from inferring the beneficial interest in it. On this basis, it was deemed that the husband held the sole beneficial interest in the property. The court did give the wife the opportunity to apply for the appropriate relief after the case.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary is accurate as a description of the House of Lords decision in Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886. The case remains a foundational authority on common intention constructive trusts and resulting trusts in the context of the family home.
However, readers should be aware that the law in this area has developed significantly since 1971. Most importantly, the House of Lords in Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107 built upon Gissing and, in particular, Lord Bridge’s analysis set a high threshold for inferring common intention from conduct alone. More recently, the Supreme Court in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 substantially refined the law on constructive trusts over shared homes, particularly where legal title is held jointly, introducing the concept of ambulatory constructive trusts and emphasising a holistic assessment of the parties’ shared intentions. These later decisions are now the leading authorities and should be read alongside Gissing to understand the current legal position. The article does not address this subsequent development.
It should also be noted that for married couples and civil partners, the courts now have wide discretionary powers under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to adjust property rights on divorce, meaning the strict trust law analysis in Gissing is of most practical relevance today to unmarried cohabitants.
