Grant v Edwards [1986] EWCA Civ 4
Common Intention – Beneficial Interest – Constructive Trust – Equity – Common Intention – Title Deeds – Conveyance
Facts
The complainant, Mrs Grant, was going to co-habit with Mr Edwards. The defendant purchased a house for them to live together in December 1969, with the property conveyed in the joint name of Mr Edwards and his brother. The complainant was married to someone else at this time, so the defendant said he would not put her name on the title deeds, as it may affect her divorce from her husband. The defendant paid the deposit and mortgages for the home, while the complainant paid for housekeeping and the children.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issues
This appeal concerned whether Mrs Grant had a beneficial interest in the property, even though the defendant had not put her name on the conveyance and had paid the mortgage instalments.
Decision/Outcome
It was held that the complainant was entitled to a one-half beneficial interest in the house and in the net proceeds of sale under a constructive trust. A common intention that she should have a beneficial interest had to be accompanied by conduct in detrimental reliance on that intention. The defendant’s excuse that including her name on the title would prejudice her matrimonial proceedings provided evidence of the understanding that she was to share ownership.
Mrs Grant’s substantial contributions from her earnings towards household expenses enabled the defendant to meet mortgage instalments which he could not have afforded alongside all the other expenses. They therefore amounted to indirect contributions to the mortgages and established the necessary detriment and link with the common intention. The decision did not establish that ordinary housekeeping alone automatically gives a cohabitant a beneficial interest.
The initial understanding, her indirect mortgage contributions and the placing of surplus fire-insurance money into a joint account supported the finding that her share was one half. The appeal was allowed.
Further citations: [1986] Ch 638; [1986] 3 WLR 114; [1986] 2 All ER 426; [1986] Fam Law 300; [1987] 1 FLR 87.
Judgment: Court of Appeal, 24 March 1986.
