Lowson v Coombes [1999] Ch. 373
Resulting Trust – Property – Sole Owner – Inheritance – Common Intention – Beneficial Interest – Trust – Illegality – Equity
Facts
Mr Lowson and Ms Coombes were a couple who purchased a house together. They were not married, as Mr Lowson was still married to his ex-partner. In light of this, the defendant conveyed the house only in her name as the sole owner. Ms Coombes had agreed with Mr Lowson to do this, as she feared that if he died, his wife would inherit the property and she would be left homeless.
Issues
The trial judge had dismissed the claim that Ms Coombes held the property on trust for the complainant in equal shares. This decision was appealed and the issue in this case was who would be the beneficial owner of the property they used to live in together.
Decision/Outcome
The appeal was allowed and it was held that Ms Coombes would hold 50 per cent of the beneficial interest in the property on a resulting trust for the complainant. It was stated that the clean hands doctrine normally means that ‘he who comes to equity must do so with clean hands’; in other words, equity would not help someone who had carried out the action with an illegal purpose. The judge had held that despite the illegality of trying to stop the wife from inheriting the house, Mr Lowson would still have beneficial interest in the property. The intention of Mr Lowson and Ms Coombes would have led to the same result even if there were no illegality.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary is broadly accurate as a description of Lowson v Coombes [1999] Ch 373. However, readers should be aware of two significant legal developments that affect the wider principles discussed.
First, the illegality defence in equity has been substantially re-examined by the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42. The Supreme Court replaced the earlier approach (which asked whether the claimant needed to rely on the illegality to establish their claim) with a broader, more flexible range of factors balancing the underlying purpose of the prohibition, public policy considerations, and proportionality. The reasoning in Lowson v Coombes on illegality should therefore be read in light of this development, as the analytical framework applied by the Court of Appeal in 1999 no longer represents the current law.
Second, the law on resulting trusts and common intention constructive trusts over shared homes has been considerably developed since 1999, notably by Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53. These cases primarily address situations where legal title is jointly held, but they also affect how courts approach beneficial interests in domestic property disputes more broadly. Students should ensure they read Lowson v Coombes alongside this later case law.
