What is the ratio in Tinsley v Milligan?

A party to an illegal transaction can still claim property rights in equity if they can establish their claim without having to rely on or plead the illegal purpose.

What did the court decide in Tinsley v Milligan?

The House of Lords allowed Milligan's claim to a beneficial interest because she could prove it through her contributions without needing to rely on the benefit fraud.

Why is Tinsley v Milligan important for equity and trusts?

It establishes the 'reliance test' for illegality in property claims and shows how resulting trusts can survive illegality, though the decision remains controversial.

What is the ratio in Tinsley v Milligan?

A party to an illegal transaction can still claim property rights in equity if they can establish their claim without having to rely on or plead the illegal purpose.

What did the court decide in Tinsley v Milligan?

The House of Lords allowed Milligan's claim to a beneficial interest because she could prove it through her contributions without needing to rely on the benefit fraud.

Why is Tinsley v Milligan important for equity and trusts?

It establishes the 'reliance test' for illegality in property claims and shows how resulting trusts can survive illegality, though the decision remains controversial.

Equity & Trusts1 min read

Tinsley v Milligan

[1994] 1 AC 340House of Lords1994

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Equity & Trusts cases →

“Illegal trust participants can recover property without relying on illegality”

Facts

Two women purchased a house as joint beneficial owners but put legal title in one name only (Tinsley) to enable the other (Milligan) to make fraudulent benefit claims. After a relationship breakdown, Tinsley claimed sole ownership. Milligan sought to establish her equitable interest in the property.

Issues

Whether a party to an illegal transaction can recover property or enforce rights arising from that transaction, and specifically whether Milligan could establish her equitable interest without relying on the illegality.

Held

The House of Lords held that Milligan could establish her equitable interest in the property. A party can recover property if they can establish their case without relying on their own illegal conduct, even if the arrangement was tainted by illegality.

Significance

This case established the modern approach to illegality in property disputes, confirming that the reliance principle applies to both legal and equitable claims. It remains the leading authority on recovery of property interests tainted by illegality.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of Tinsley v Milligan. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340 (HL)

Equity and TrustsProperty LawIllegalityResulting Trusts

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDL

More Equity & Trusts cases

Yiannakis Chambi v Aristos Aristodemou & Anor

[2026] EWHC 599 (Ch)

Louise Mary Harris & Anor v Neil Quantick & Anor

[2026] EWHC 137 (Ch)

Amaal Ventures Ltd & Anor v Eros Ltd

[2026] EWHC Ch 870

Jonathan Frank Bown v Clive Shipley & Anor

[2026] EWHC 918 (Ch)

Bhattacharya & Anor v Robert Armstrong & Anor

[2026] EWHC Ch 759

Joanna Rich v JDDR Capital Limited

[2026] EWHC 853 (Ch)

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.