Oxley v Hiscock [2005] Fam. 211
Land Law – Constructive Trust – Beneficial Interest – Common Intention – Property
Facts
Ms Oxley and Mr Hiscock were in a relationship, but not married. They decided to purchase a house together, which was in the name of the defendant. There was no express mention about shares of the property. The complainant contributed 28 per cent of the property payment and the defendant paid 48 per cent. Both Ms Oxley and Mr Hiscock contributed to the upkeep of the house and maintenance, as well as paying off the mortgage.
Issues
The complainant argued that she was entitled to 50 per cent of the proceedings from the property. The issue was whether she had a beneficial interest in the house and could claim a percentage of the sale.
Decision/Outcome
The court held that Ms Oxley was entitled to a 40 per cent share of the property based on the facts. Lord Justice Chadwick stated that there were two questions to decide the issue in this case, whether there was a constructive trust and how it would be quantified. It was found that Ms Oxley did have a beneficial interest in the property and although her share was not equal to the initial cash contributions, the other payments she made were to be taken into account. Lord Justice Chadwick stated that the court would be fair and have ‘regard to the whole course of dealing between them in relation to the property’ [69]. Thus, in order to make quantification, the shares should be assessed at the time of the sale, not when it was purchased.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary is broadly accurate as a description of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Oxley v Hiscock [2004] EWCA Civ 546 (reported at [2005] Fam 211). However, readers should be aware of one significant legal development: the House of Lords’ decision in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 substantially refined the approach to quantifying beneficial interests in domestic property disputes between cohabitants. The ‘whole course of dealing’ language endorsed in Oxley v Hiscock was affirmed, but the House of Lords made clear that in cases where property is jointly owned at law, the starting point is that the beneficial interest is also held jointly and equal shares should follow in the absence of evidence displacing that presumption. The Supreme Court further developed this area in Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, introducing the concept of ambulatory constructive trusts and confirming that where a common intention cannot be deduced, the court may in limited circumstances impute an intention to the parties. These later authorities significantly qualify the approach taken in Oxley v Hiscock and readers should treat this case as historically important but should refer to Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott for the current legal position.
