Common Intention Constructive Trust
Arises where parties share a common intention that the claimant should have a beneficial interest in property, and the claimant has acted to their detriment in reliance on that intention.
Sole Legal Owner Cases
Where the legal title is in one party's name only:
- The claimant must establish a common intention (express or inferred) that they should have a beneficial interest.
- They must show detrimental reliance on that intention.
- Express common intention may be found in discussions/agreements; inferred common intention is drawn from conduct — most reliably direct financial contributions to the purchase price or mortgage: Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] (Lord Bridge).
Note: Whether Rosset's narrow approach to inferred common intention has been relaxed remains contested; the Supreme Court in Jones v Kernott [2011] left the sole-owner analysis to future cases, so Rosset remains the leading authority for sole-owner situations at SQE1 level.
Joint Legal Owner Cases
Where both parties hold the legal title jointly (Stack v Dowden [2007]; Jones v Kernott [2011]):
- The starting point is that equity follows the law — equal beneficial shares.
- This presumption can be displaced, but the burden is heavy; the court looks at the whole course of dealing.
- If common intention changes over time, the court may impute an intention to the parties (Jones v Kernott): each takes the share the court considers fair in all the circumstances.
Quantification of Shares
- Once entitlement is established, the court quantifies the share having regard to the whole course of dealing between the parties, not solely financial contributions.
Detrimental Reliance
- Must be conduct on which the claimant could not reasonably be expected to embark unless they believed they had or would acquire an interest: includes contributions to purchase price, mortgage payments, substantial improvement works.
Common Traps
- Confusing the threshold question (does a CICT exist?) with the quantification question (how much?).
- Applying Stack v Dowden (joint owners) to a sole-owner fact pattern.
- Forgetting detrimental reliance is a required element for sole-owner cases.
Exam tip: Identify legal ownership first — joint or sole — then apply the correct starting presumption.