- Published on
Legal Terms -common intention constructive trust
a *implied trust that carries out the parties' shared objective. The concept of a constructive trust with a shared aim has primarily been employed to create a portion (or, more lately, a larger portion) of the family home (Pettitt v. Pettitt [1970] AC 777 (UKHL); Gissing v. Gissing [1971] AC 886 (UKHL)). In order to obtain an interest, the claimant must demonstrate that there was a shared intention for him to have an interest and that there was a negative reliance (or shift in position) on that shared intention. Following Lloyds Bank v. Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107 (UKHL), the courts used a narrower approach when determining what constituted a common intention, accepting as proof only an explicit agreement or monetary contributions. The courts are prepared to qualify the interest using a "broad brush approach" after the common intention has been proved (Drake v. Whipp [1996] 1 FLR 826 (CA)). In the case of Stack v. Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, [2007] 2 AC 432, the courts have demonstrated their willingness to infer a common intention to quantify the interest. In extraordinary cases, they may even impute a common intention between the parties (Jones v. Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, [2012] 1 AC 776).
a *implied trust that carries out the parties' shared objective. The concept of a constructive trust with a shared aim has primarily been employed to create a portion (or, more lately, a larger portion) of the family home (Pettitt v. Pettitt [1970] AC 777 (UKHL); Gissing v. Gissing [1971] AC 886 (UKHL)). In order to obtain an interest, the claimant must demonstrate that there was a shared intention for him to have an interest and that there was a negative reliance (or shift in position) on that shared intention. Following Lloyds Bank v. Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107 (UKHL), the courts used a narrower approach when determining what constituted a common intention, accepting as proof only an explicit agreement or monetary contributions. The courts are prepared to qualify the interest using a "broad brush approach" after the common intention has been proved (Drake v. Whipp [1996] 1 FLR 826 (CA)). In the case of Stack v. Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, [2007] 2 AC 432, the courts have demonstrated their willingness to infer a common intention to quantify the interest. In extraordinary cases, they may even impute a common intention between the parties (Jones v. Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, [2012] 1 AC 776).
0 Comments