Wilson v Wilson [1969] 1 WLR 1470 ChD
Rectification of trust on grounds of mistake; effect of equitable interests.
Facts
The defendant sought to purchase a house with the aid of a building society mortgage. His earnings did not satisfy the building society’s requirements, and so he asked his brother to join him as co-buyer. The transfer contained a declaration that the title was to be held as joint tenants in equity and the title was registered in joint names, with both brothers as co-mortgagors. The claimant served notice to sever the tenancy and claimed an undivided half share in the property, and the defendant counterclaimed to have the transfer rectified.
Issues
The defendant asserted that it had been the intention of both himself and his brother at the time of the purchase of the property that it should be held for him beneficially in its entirety. He had paid the full deposit and he had fulfilled the mortgage repayments and the claimant had contributed nothing to the purchase price of the property. The only reason the brother had been included on the title was to satisfy the mortgagee’s requirements. As such, he applied to have the part of the transfer establishing a joint tenancy to be rectified for mistake. The claimant sought to rely on the precise terms of the transfer deed and claimed a half share of the property.
Decision/Outcome
The defendant was afforded relief by way of rectification and the declaration of trust was struck out from the transfer deed. The evidence clearly showed that it was the intention of both parties that the property was to be held beneficially for the defendant in its entirety, subject only to the mortgage with the building society.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the decision in Wilson v Wilson [1969] 1 WLR 1470. The case remains good law on the equitable remedy of rectification where a written document fails to reflect the true common intention of the parties. The underlying principles — that equity will rectify a document to accord with the parties’ genuine shared intention, and that a declaration of trust in a transfer deed is not conclusive where mistake can be demonstrated — continue to apply. However, readers should be aware of subsequent developments in the wider law of co-ownership and resulting/constructive trusts. In particular, Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 have significantly developed the approach courts take when determining beneficial ownership of jointly-held property, particularly in a domestic context where a declaration of trust is absent or ambiguous. These cases do not overrule Wilson v Wilson on rectification, but they are essential reading for any full understanding of the modern law in this area. The article remains accurate as a statement of the rectification principles it addresses.
