Facts: An unmarried couple were in a relationship. Mr Rankine bought a property and the property was to be used for business. Mrs Rankine became involved in the business and worked for free. THe relationhip broke down and Mrs Rankine tried to claim a proprietary interest through a constructive trust

Held: The court of appeals held there was no constructive trust as there was no 'common intention' to do so

Facts: This case sets out the test that the common intention of the parties is the determinative factor when it comes to common intention constructive trusts. In the case, a house was bought in the husband's name, but the wife made some contributions to the upkeep and improvements of the property

Held: The House of Lords held that, despite this, she (the wife) had no proprietary interest. However, it was said that where there was a common intention that the beneficial (equitable) interest was to be shared, either equally or otherwise, then a constructive trust could be found

Facts: The defendant bought a house as the sole legal owner. The claimant later came to live in the defendant's home.

Held: The court held there was no evidence of a common intention nor had the defendant made representations sufficient to found a claim in proprietary estoppel.

⇒ It was noted that, although a common intention to share the beneficial ownership might arise in the case of a property acquire before the partners came together, the court would require strong evidence. In such cases, a claim in proprietary estoppel is likely to be more appropriate

Facts: Mr Rosset became entitled to a lot of money under a Swiss Trust fund. He used the money to buy a derelict property needing lots of work on it. In accordance with the terms of the trust fund the property was conveyed to Mr Rosset alone. Although, Mrs Rosset did not contribute to the purchase price of the property, the renovation was a joint venture between Mr and Mrs Rosset, and she supervices the builders and contributed money to towards the redecoration. At a later date, the house was mortgaged - the repayments on this mortgage could not be met and the bank sued for repossession. The wife resisted the repossession on the grounds that she had an equitable interest in the property by way of a constructive trust

Held: The Court of Appeal denied Mrs Rosset's claim. Confirming a great deal of ealier case law the court said that there are 2 fundamental requirements in order to achieve a constructive trust: a common intention plus detrimental reliance

Facts: A husband and wife bought a house. They registered the house in the husband's sole name. Some purchase money was contributed by the wife.

Held: The court of appeal overturned a finding of a resulting trust based on contribution → “the duty of the judge is to undertake a survey of the whole course of dealing” and not just “confine itself to the limited range of acts of direct contribution of the sort that are needed to found a beneficial interest in the first place”

Facts: A man and a woman bought a house together. 1/3 of the purchase price was provided by the woman, but the house was registered in the man's sole name

Held: The court of appeal held that the resulting trust approach, by which the beneficial interest was shared in proportion to the contribution, was not implied by Lloyds Bank v Rosset: a contribution to the purchase price did mean that the non-owning partner had established a beneficial interest, BUT the extent of which remained to be determined by what the court considered fair

⇒ This approach was given qualified approval by the House of Lords in Stack v Dowden

Facts: A married couple lived, at first in a house which the wife had inherited and later in a house bought with the proceeds of sale of that house. On the divorce of the couple, the husband claimed a proprietary interest in the property, on the basis of improvements he had made to the property

Held: The claim of the husband was not allowed

Facts: Tinsley and Milligan both contributed tot he purchase of a house, which they ran together as a bed and breakfast. However, in order that Milligan could claim housing benefit, the house was registered in Tinsley's sole name and Milligan was claiming to be paying rent.

Held: It was held, by the House of Lords, that Tinsley held the property on a resulting trust for the benefit of herself and Milligan, in shares proportional to their contribution to the purchase price.