Implied, Resulting And Constructive Trusts

There must be evidence of express words or common intention (Eves v Eves (1975) and Grant v Edwards (1986)). Must also prove a detriment based on reliance.

Where one or more persons who are not on the legal title has made a contribution towards the acquisition either at the time of purchase or by paying towards mortgage instalments (Lloyds Bank v Rosset (1990)). Note that following Stack v Dowden (2007) as approved in Jones v Kernott (2011) the courts take a more holistic approach to determining the issue of implied beneficial ownership. However, Stack and Jones were both joint legal ownership cases and the only issue was of quantification. It wasn't until Capehorn v Harris (2015) where the court had to look again at a sole legal ownership dispute. In this case, the court appeared to suggest that only direct financial contributions would suffice (like Lloyds Bank v Rosset) for the qualification issue, but the court agreed that in the absence of evidence to the contrary the court would imply what the parties intentions were as to division of the beneficial interest based on all the evidence and would only impute an intention upon them if this could not be determined by the evidence available, which would be based on what is fair in light of the whole course of dealings (Oxley v Hiscock (2004)).

Following Jones v Kernott (2011), where both parties are on the legal title there is a presumption that equity follows the law and they hold the equitable title between them as joint tenants to, which will be split 50/50 on sale, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

This presumption could be displaced if there is evidence that the parties clearly intended to hold different shares or that these would change. In these circumstances the court could infer an intention as to the division based on all the evidence and could impute an intention in the absence of this based on what is fair in light of the whole course of dealings (Oxley v Hiscock (2004)).