Appellant and respondent purchasing property in sole name of respondent – Parties seeking to avoid a claim by appellant’s wife – Whether judge erred in concluding that respondent held the beneficial interest in the property absolutely – Appeal allowed
The appellant and the respondent began a relationship in 1973, while they were both still married to other persons. In 1989 they each contributed to the purchase of 1 Queensway Road, Sidcup, Kent, which was conveyed into the sole name of the respondent. This was done to prevent or defeat any claim by the appellant’s wife, particularly in the event of the appellant’s death. The parties never married and their relationship broke down in 1991. In 1993, the appellant sought a declaration that the property was held on trust for sale by the respondent and that he was entitled to a beneficial interest in the property. On January 6 1998 the trial judge dismissed the appellant’s claim under the Trusts of Land Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. Having found that there had been a common intention to purchase the property in approximately equal shares, the judge held that the case could not be distinguished from Tinker v Tinker [1970] P 136. Accordingly, the appellant’s only honest intention was that the property should belong to the respondent, and the appellant could not assert his half interest. The appellant appealed, contending that as it had been found that there was a common intention that the parties had more or less equal shares, there was a presumption of a resulting trust. Even if the transfer to avoid a possible claim by the wife were an illegal purpose, the appellant did not have to rely upon that illegality to assert his title.
Held The appeal was allowed.
