The family home. Types of constructive trust. The end of detrimental reliance?

Archibald v Alexander: the facts

In Archibald v Alexander ([2020] EWHC 1621) a mother and her three children (Patsy, Brenda and John) orally agreed that a house would be purchased in the name of the mother and one of the siblings. It was to be held on trust for the mother for life and then for the three children equally.

This was for tax-planning reasons and to protect the property from any claim by the mother’s husband should she re-marry. The assumption was that there was no need to take excessive care to formalise the trust given the loving family context.

The property was transferred to the mother and Patsy as joint tenants, neither Brenda nor John was available to attend the solicitor’s office at the time of the purchase.

When the mother died, there was a dispute as to whether Patsy was the sole owner of the property or held it on the terms of the oral trust.

Was there reliance?

If this was a common intention constructive trust, then Brenda and John needed to show detrimental reliance. Fancourt J. held that there was reliance: ‘the non-signing siblings were self-evidently relying on the word and promise of those who did become owners’ ([14]).

Was there detriment?

Given the finding of reliance, the detriment was the decision of Brenda and John not to take steps to legally protect their ownership interest in the house; this was a sufficient change of position ([30]).

Not a common intention constructive trust?

The findings on detrimental reliance were obiter:

‘the instant case is of a different kind, in which a property is transferred (gratuitously) into the name of the owner on the basis of their express agreement to hold the property on trust for another. The owner only obtains the property on the terms of the agreement and equity does not permit them unconscionably to refuse to give effect to the terms. The trust arises from the terms on which the property was transferred, not from detrimental reliance on the agreement by the beneficiary.’ ([32]).

The essential elements of this constructive trust are: ‘property had been transferred to a volunteer on the basis of his promise to hold it on certain terms, and would not otherwise have been so transferred’ ([37]).

Fancourt J. referred to Rochefoucauld v Boustead; Bannister v Bannister and De Bruyne v De Bruyne.

There is no need to establish detrimental reliance for constructive trusts like this.

Michael Lower

 

Advertisement

Estoppel where the family home is owned by a company

 

The inference of a trust when the family home is owned by a company controlled by a spouse
In Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd the UK Supreme Court established that English family law (specifically section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act) does not give the court any special power to pierce the corporate veil in the case of disputes concerning the family home owned by a company controlled by one of the spouses.

In an important passage of his judgment, however, Lord Sumption suggested that, ‘in the case of the matrimonial home, the facts are quite likely to justify the inference that the property was held on trust for a spouse who owned and controlled the company.’ This beneficial interest would count among the spouse’s assets when dealing with ancillary relief.

Other forms of equitable intervention
There might be cases, though, where the courts do not feel able to infer the existence of a trust but where the spouse (or co-habitee) who owned and controlled the company has assured the other that they have or will have an interest in the family home.

On the face of it, the person giving the assurance has no legal or equitable interest in the property. It would seem to follow that there is no basis on which the recipient of the assurance can claim an interest in the family home.

How might equity intervene to protect the expectations of the recipient of the assurance in these circumstances? In 2008, in Luo Xing Juan v Hui Shui See, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal considered this question.

The facts in Luo Xing Juan v Hui Shui See

Luo Xing Juan (‘L’) and Hui Shui See (‘H’) co-habited in a property owned by Glory Rise Ltd (‘Glory Rise’). Glory Rise had acquired the property as an investment. The company had two shareholders when incorporated but subsequently H became the sole shareholder and director.

H asked L to marry him and she agreed. H assured L that he would give her a 35% interest in the property when he was in a position to do so. In the meantime, he transferred a 35% shareholding in Glory Rise to L.

H died before he was in a position to give effect to his promise to make L a co-owner of the property. H’s estate sought to revoke L’s licence to occupy the property. L responded with claims to an interest in the property based on the common intention constructive trust and proprietary estoppel.

The corporate veil rules out the use of the common intention constructive trust and proprietary estoppel

L’s claims failed because there was no reason to pierce the corporate veil: H had given an assurance about property owned not by him but by a third party, Glory Rise. Unlike Prest, it could not plausibly be suggested that the company held the property as trustee for H.

Promissory estoppel as the solution
L successfully resisted the company’s attempt to evict her by relying on promissory estoppel. H’s assurance was re-interpreted so that it related to the exercise of his powers as controlling shareholder of Glory Rise.

In effect, H had assured L that he would not allow his powers as controlling shareholder to be used to evict her until she had received the 35% beneficial interest in the property that she had been promised.

The Court of Final Appeal ordered that Glory Rise should be wound up on the just and equitable ground. The property was to be sold and L was to vacate it once a buyer had been found. L would then receive 35% of the net sale proceeds.

This solution has the clear merit of both respecting the corporate veil and of giving practical (and just) effect to H’s assurance and L’s detrimental reliance on it.

Promissory estoppel: no proprietary effect

Ribeiro PJ, in the main judgment in Luo Xing Juan, emphasised that promissory estoppel was a mere equity; it was not proprietary. It conditioned H’s exercise of the voting power connected with his controlling stake in Glory Rise and, indirectly, deferred Glory Rise’s ability to evict L.

The blurring of the distinction between proprietary and promissory estoppel

It is not surprising that promissory estoppel should be invoked so as to defer a licensor’s right to evict a licensee. Maharaj v Chand had already shown the way on this; promissory estoppel was used to prevent the man who was the legal owner of the family home from evicting his wife.

On the other hand, it is very noticeable that, in considering the relief to be granted, the Court of Final Appeal was guided by the classic English proprietary estoppel authorities (Crabb v Arun District Council; Pascoe v Turner; Gillett v Holt; Campbell v Griffin and Jennings v Rice). The Court of Final Appeal clearly intended that L’s relief should be designed with the exercise of the proprietary estoppel remedial discretion in mind.

Promissory estoppel was used, in effect, to protect L’s expectation of a 35% interest in Glory Rise’s property. This is surprising because it seems to contradict the proposition in Coombe v Coombe that promissory estoppel cannot be used as a cause of action.

The interplay between promissory estoppel and winding up on the just and equitable ground

The order was that Glory Rise should be wound up on the just and equitable ground. The substratum of Glory Rise was as ‘the intended vehicle for holding the Property as the matrimonial and family home of the deceased, Miss Luo and [Miss Luo’s daughter]’ (Ribeiro PJ at [74]). This substratum disappeared with H’s death.

This prompts the reflection that where, like L, the plaintiff is a shareholder in the company then a winding up petition (or, perhaps, unfair prejudice proceedings) are an option. Further, they represent an option which is available independently of any estoppel claim.

Limited to cases where the recipient of the assurance is a shareholder?

The Luo Xing Juan promissory estoppel approach is available even in cases where the recipient of the assurance is not a shareholder in the company that holds the property. Thus, in Hong Kong Hua Qiao Co Ltd v Cham Ka Tai (later upheld by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal), the Luo Xing Juan approach was adopted in a case with similar facts.

L and C began to co-habit in a property owned by a company in which L was effectively the sole shareholder. Each was already married when the relationship began.

L assured C that she would be able to live in the property for the rest of her life. L and C co-habited for five years before L died intestate. His wife and son sought to evict C from the property.

C was not a shareholder in the company that owned the family home, although the assurance concerned both the family home and shares in the company that owned it. Winding up would have been of no use to the recipient in this case.

Deputy Judge Saunders, relying on Luo Xing Juan, decided that L’s promises that C could live in the property for the rest of her life were ‘enforceable by way of promissory estoppel’ ([115]).

On relief, Deputy Judge Saunders, relying on Luo Xing Juan, said that C was entitled to an order transferring the legal title of the property to her ([118]). Again, this seems to have been a proprietary estoppel case in all but name.

Limited to family home cases?
Luo Xing Juan and Hong Kong Hua Qiao each concerned the use of promissory estoppel to establish a claim to the family home.

In Hong Kong Hua Qiao, Deputy Judge Saunders drew attention to the fact that both cases involved couples living together as man and wife ([93]) without explaining the significance of this fact. In Chan Sung Lai v Chan Sung Lim Paul, Deputy Judge Saunders (at [128]) expressed his uncertainty as to whether the doctrine could apply as between father and son.

Clearly, the distinction drawn in Thorner v Major between this context and the commercial context is likely to be relevant if there is any dispute as to the meaning of any words or conduct said to constitute an assurance.

Luo Xing Juan and Hong Kong Hia Qiao, however, were not concerned with questions of interpretation. If context was relevant it was for some other reason.

Deputy Judge Saunders may have intended to indicate that this approach to promissory estoppel was more likely to be used in the family home or ‘domestic’ context.

It may be that the Luo Xing Juan promissory estoppel will turn out to be confined to cases with the very specific features of these cases; it may be limited to cases where a couple are living together as man and wife (whether or not they are married) in a property owned by a company controlled by one of them (who gives the relevant assurance).

Limited to company owned by a single shareholder?

In both Luo Xing Juan and Hong Kong Hia Qiao, the company that owned the family home was solely owned by the maker of the relevant assurance. In Luo Xing Juan, H bought out his sister’s 20% minority stake around the same time as he transferred the 35% shareholding to L.

This raises the question as to whether the doctrine can only operate where the maker of the assurance is the sole shareholder. There are arguments in principle in favour of either possible answer to this question.

On the one hand, the relevant assurance is an assurance as to the exercise of voting control. There is no need for a shareholder to own all of the shares in a company to have the power to dictate the outcome of the board decision on any question.

On the other hand, if there are minority shareholders, other than the recipient of the assurance, then the effect of the use of the doctrine on their interests would need to be taken into consideration. They may view the property as an investment and in some market conditions might prefer the company to retain ownership.

This may seem a purely theoretical question but in Luo Xing Juan, H’s sister retained a 20% stake in the company for a few months after the transfer of the 35% shareholding to L. Had H died during those few months then this question would have had practical importance.

Limited to cases where the recipient of the assurance is in occupation of the relevant property at the time of the proceedings?

In Luo Xing Juan and Hong Kong Hia Qiao, the company that owned the family home sought to evict the recipient of the assurance who was in occupation of the property. Promissory estoppel is invoked, in the first place, as a defence against this attempted eviction.

Is this an essential element of the Luo Xing Juan doctrine? The company’s right to possession is not taken away but is conditioned by the estoppel. This accords with a traditional understanding of promissory estoppel and, as noted earlier, suggests a continuity with Maharaj v Chand.

Limiting the Luo Xing Juan approach to cases like this would be consistent with the idea, just discussed, that its use might be limited to family home cases.

A more general relaxation of the distinction between promissory and proprietary estoppel?

The approach in Luo Xing Juan challenges what had seemed to be a well-established distinction between proprietary and promissory estoppel in ways that I have indicated.

I have considered the possibility that the Luo Xing Juan approach is only intended to take effect in certain circumstances. I have considered what those circumstances might be.

It is possible, however, that the Court of Final Appeal intended to establish a more general proposition; it may be that the judgment intended to minimise or even abolish altogether the distinction between proprietary and promissory estoppel. This would explain why proprietary estoppel principles and authorities were applied so readily.

On the other hand, there is no express indication in any of the judgments to indicate that this was the intention; one would have expected that an intention to restructure the law in this way would be clearly flagged up and that some justification would be offered for it.

In paragraph [54] of his judgment, Ribeiro PJ raises the question of the relationship between promissory and proprietary estoppel:

‘The doctrine of estoppel continues to represent a developing area of the law and aspects of the applicable principles are subject to debate. Thus, there is discussion as to the extent to which promissory estoppel and proprietary estoppel overlap, with a body of opinion inclining towards the view that there is no real difference between them. In the present context, proprietary estoppel is inapplicable because the deceased, not being the owner of the Property, was not in a position to confer on Miss Luo a proprietary interest in it. However, as Maharaj v Chand establishes, this does not prevent recourse to promissory estoppel. The doctrines therefore differ at least to that extent. However, it is at the same time clear that many of the constituent elements of the two forms of estoppel are shared and where that is so, authorities on proprietary estoppel provide guidance in cases involving promissory estoppel.’

This passage leaves the question in the balance: there is substantial overlap but some (unspecified) difference. There is no suggestion here of an intention to effect radical change in the law.

Conclusion
When a limited company holds the title to the family home, assurances concerning ownership of the home given by a director or shareholder cannot directly limit the rights of the company nor give rise to a common intention constructive trust or proprietary estoppel claim.

Luo Xing Juan created the possibility that such an assurance could condition the exercise of that shareholder’s voting rights so that they could not be exercised in a way that is inconsistent with the assurance that has been given. This limitation is presented as a form of promissory estoppel.

The Court of Final Appeal went further when it decided that the effect of the estoppel was, in effect, to require the company to make good on the assurance given by the controlling shareholder.

It is not clear whether this promissory estoppel has general application or applies only in limited circumstances. If the latter, the circumstances in which the estoppel applies are not clearly defined.

Michael Lower

Proprietary estoppel: Australian take on proving detrimental reliance in relationship cases

In Sidhu v Van Dyke ([2014] HCA 19) V was married to the brother of S’s wife. V lived with her husband in Oaks Cottage which was part of a larger lot of land (Burra Station) owned by S and his wife. V and his wife lived in a homestead which was part of the same lot. S and V began a sexual relationship. V and her husband divorced when the latter discovered the relationship.

S assured V on several occasions that he would transfer Oaks Cottage to her on the sub-division of the lot that included Oaks Cottage. S gave V a written note to confirm that he had promised to give Oaks Cottage to V.

V did not seek a property settlement in her divorce proceedings; S suggested that there was no need for her to do so since she had Oaks Cottage. V carried out substantial unpaid maintenance and renovation works on Oaks Cottage and on other parts of Burra Station. She was also actively involved in the work related to the application to sub-divide Burra Station.  V did not seek full-time employment during the years in which she lived in Oaks Cottage.

The relationship ended after nine years. V brought a proprietary estoppel claim when S and his wife refused to convey Oaks Cottage to V.

The first instance judge (Ward J) found that S made two promises to transfer Oaks Cottage to V by way of gift. These promises were, he found, conditional on the sub-division of the Burra Station lot. The claim failed. First, it would not have been reasonable for V to rely on the promises since the condition could only be satisfied with the consent of S’s wife. Second, Ward J. concluded that V had not been able to prove reliance on the promises. His reading of the evidence was that she might have incurred the detriment even in the absence of the promises.

V succeeded on appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. First, it was not objectively unreasonable for V to have relied on S’s promises. Second, the Court of Appeal relied on Greasley v Cooke: the circumstances were such as to raise a ‘presumption of reliance’. Barrett JA said:

‘Where inducement by the promise may be inferred from the claimant’s conduct, as is the case here, the onus or burden shifts to the defendant to establish that the claimant did not rely on the promise. It was therefore for [S] to rebut the presumption and establish that [V] did not rely at all on the promises in acting or refraining from acting to her detriment’ (Van Dyke v Sidhu (2013) 301 ALR 769 at 786 [83]).

The presumption of reliance was raised and had not been rebutted. Having regard to S’s wife’s interest in the property, the Court of Appeal refused to order the transfer of Oaks Cottage to V. Rather, S was ordered to pay equitable compensation by reference to the value of the disappointed expectation.

S appealed to the High Court of Australia. S contended that the Court of Appeal had gone astray in speaking of a presumption of reliance and thus reversing the burden of proof. Further, equitable compensation should be calculated by reference to the loss suffered in reliance on the promises and not by reference to V’s expectation.

The High Court of Australia rejected the notion that there could be a presumption of reliance:

‘In point of principle, to speak of deploying a presumption of reliance in the context of equitable estoppel is to fail to recognise that it is the conduct of the representee induced by the representor which is the very foundation for equitable intervention. Reliance is a fact to be found; it is not to be imputed on the basis of evidence which falls short of proof of the fact. It is actual reliance by the promisee, and the state of affairs so created, which answers the concern that equitable estoppel not be allowed to outflank Jorden v Money by dispensing with the need for consideration if a promise is to be enforceable as a contract’ ([58]).

There was no shifting of the burden of proof as regards reliance; the onus remained on V ([61]). Rather, ‘[t]he real question was as to the appropriate inference to be drawn from the whole of the evidence, including the answers elicited from the respondent in the course of cross-examination’ ([64]).

Put another way, the question was ‘whether, when all the facts are in, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the promises in question contributed to the respondent’s conduct in deciding to commit to her relationship  with the appellant and adhering to that relationship (with all that that entailed) for eight and a half years’ ([66]).

Nevertheless, V was able to show reliance: ‘A review of the whole of the evidence shows that the respondent had made out a compelling case of detrimental reliance’ ([67]). It was enough that the promises contributed to the decision by V to carry out work on the property. The promises did need not to be the sole cause of the detriment, merely to have influenced the decision (Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd (In Liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd [1982] QB 84 at 104 – 105). In Steria Ltd v Hutchison ([2007] ICR 448) Neuberger LJ said that the representation need only have been ‘a significant factor’. V was able to show that this was the case.

On the measure of relief, the High Court said that, ‘[t]he requirements of good conscience may mean that in some cases the value of the promise may not be the just measure of relief ([83]). ‘If the respondent had been induced to make a small, readily quantifiable outlay on the faith of the appellant’s assurances, then it might not be unconscionable for the appellant to resile from his promises to the respondent on condition that he reimburse her for her outlay’ ([84]).

This was not the right approach in this case, however, since the detriment involved ‘life-changing decisions with irreversible consequences of a profoundly personal nature’ (Donis v Donis (2007) 19 VR 577 at 588 – 589 [34] per Nettle JA).

‘[I]n the circumstances of the present case … justice will not be done by a remedy the value of which falls short of holding the appellant to his promises … [W]here the unconscionable conduct consists of resiling from a promise or assurance which has induced conduct to the other party’s detriment, the relief which is necessary in this sense is usually that which reflects the value of the promise ([85]).

There was nothing conditional about the promises. These were ‘expressed categorically so as to leave no room for doubt that he would ensure that the subdivision would proceed and that the consent of the appellant’s wife would be forthcoming’ ([86]).

Michael Lower

 

Proprietary estoppel and co-habitees: assurance must relate to a specific property

Lissimore v Downing ([2003] EWHC B1 (Ch)) concerned the proprietary estoppel claim brought by L on the break-down of her relationship with D, a rock star and the owner of Astbury hall, a large estate in England. The relationship began in 1993 and lasted for seven years. There was an ‘engagement’ but neither party expected to marry.

D was heavily invested in Astbury Hall, both in financial and in psychological terms. Astbury Hall represented the fruits of many years of hard work. Even before the relationship with L deteriorated, D consulted his solicitors as to the steps to be taken to ensure that L would have no claim to an interest in it.

HH Judge Norris QC outlined the law on proprietary estoppel. He emphasised the basic rule that a representation or assurance must relate either to some specific property ([12]) or to the whole of the representor’s property ([15]).

As regards detriment, the judge said, ‘the conduct must be in some sense prejudicial to the party relying on it, or of such a nature that it raises the inference that it must have been induced by some sort of promise.’ ([20]).

The claim failed because there was no representation; it was understood that L could live at Astbury Hall while the relationship lasted. Commenting on the legal effect of the relationship, HH Judge Norris QC said:

‘The fact that that state of affairs happened to endure for several years cannot of itself impose on Mr Downing an obligation to transfer some of his property when he did not undertake such an obligation at the outset. There may be a promissory estoppel (eg a defence to a claim to leave the property before reasonable notice of the change in the nature of the arrangements has expired): but proprietary estoppel is different’ ([37]).

He went on to note the problems that arise in this type of claim:

‘The advancing of a proprietary claim tends to require the claimant to list how much (s)he did, endowing small acts with a great significance whilst at the same time not recording that party’s true contribution to the relationship.’ ([47]).

L’s proprietary estoppel claim failed. D made no statement that would lead her to believe that she was to have a share in Astbury Hall. Nor did L believe that she had any such share ([51]). D’s statements ‘relate almost entirely to the currency of the relationship’ ([53]).

Nor was there any overall detriment: ‘looking at the matter in the round, balancing the burdens assumed in the relationship against the benefits derived from it, and making the assessment after the breakdown of the relationship, no substantial detriment had been suffered’ ([54]).

There is a distinction between property law and family law claims:

‘What I am being invited to do is to make a property adjustment order on the termination of the relationship, not to define what property rights were created during the relationship’ ([55]).

Michael Lower

 

Family home in joint names and wife’s failure to transfer her interest to her husband in accordance with a consent order

In Chu Tsan Leung v Leung Mee Ling Amy ([2017] HKEC 2347) H and W were married. Title to the family home was in joint names. W left the family and in the subsequent matrimonial proceedings agreed to transfer her entire interest in the property to H. This agreement was incorporated in a consent order. W did not execute a deed to give effect to the order.

W was subsequently declared bankrupt. The Trustee in Bankruptcy claimed that W’s interest in the property remained an asset of hers. H sought a declaration that W did not have any beneficial interest in the property.

The Trustees in Bankruptcy argued that the consent order was procured through the exercise of undue influence by H and his solicitors. They argued that there was a presumption of undue influence on the facts of the case. This failed.

The evidence pointed away from the idea that the wife reposed trust and confidence in her husband at the time of signing the consent order. Nor was there anything unconscionable or manifestly disadvantageous to W when the context was properly considered: H, a construction worker, had been left to take care of two young children on his own.

It did not help W’s case for her to argue that she did not have full knowledge and understanding of the documents that she had signed. A person who signs a legal document he or she is bound by the act of signature (Bank of China (Hong Kong) Ltd v Fung Chin Kan and Ming Shiu Chung v Ming Shiu Sum).

H became the sole beneficial owner of the property from the moment of the decree absolute.

H argued, in the alternative, that he had always been the sole beneficial owner of the property since he alone had provided all of the purchase money and mortgage payments. This claim failed. Since title was in joint names, it was for H to show that she had no equitable interest. H was unable to do so.

Michael Lower

 

 

The equity of exoneration: tenant in common charging her share to protect property from partner’s creditor

Insol Funding Company Limited v Cowlam ([2017] EWHC 1822 (Ch)) also raised the question of the equity of exoneration.

Ms Cowlam co-habited with Mr Cowey. They were equitable tenants in common of the family home (‘the property’). Insol was Mr Cowey’s creditor with an equitable charge over Mr Cowey’s share in the property. It sought an order for sale of the property.

To protect her rights in the property, Ms Cowlam agreed to pay Insol GBP 330,000. This was to be treated as part payment of Mr Cowey’s debt. Ms Cowlam granted Insol an equitable charge over her share to secure the sum that she had agreed to pay.

Ms Cowlam claimed to have a proprietary right over Mr Cowey’s share by virtue of the equity of exoneration. This would arise on the date when she charged her interest with the payment of the sum due under her agreement with Insol ([38]).

Ms. Cowlam argued that in granting the charge and in making payment to Insol, she had charged her share with the payment of part of Mr Cowey’s indebtedness to Insol ([35]). Ms Cowlam argued that she had become a guarantor or surety for Mr Cowey’s indebtedness and was entitled to be exonerated out of his share ([113]).

Master Bowles explained that:

‘an equity of exoneration can arise in circumstances where property is charged for the benefit, not of the chargor, but as security for the debts of another and that, where such an equity arises, the chargor is to be regarded as a guarantor, or surety, for the debtor and can look to the debtor for indemnity, or exoneration, in the event that the charge is called upon.’ ([114]).

The equity is proprietary as well as conferring personal rights as against the debtor ([114]). Master Bowles saw no reason why it should not entitle the person claiming it to security over the debtor’s property ([114]).

The equity of exoneration arises from the ‘express, implied, or presumed, intentions of the parties’ ([115]). It was not available here. Ms Cowlam ‘entered into the settlement agreement, in her own right and for her own reasons and was, in so doing, acting purely as a volunteer’.

Michael Lower

 

Seminar about proprietary estoppel and the family home at CUHK Faculty of Law

We will run a seminar about the English Court of Appeal decision in Liden v Burton. Details are as follows:

Session A:
Date: 17 October 2017 (Tuesday)
Time: 1:00 – 3:00 pm
Venue: Classroom 3, CUHK Graduate Law Centre, 2/F., Bank of America Tower, Central
Speaker: Professor Michael Lower

Session B:
Date: 1 November 2017 (Wednesday)
Time: 1:30 – 3:30 pm
Venue: Breakout Room 510, 5/F, Lee Shau Kee Building, CUHK, Shatin
Speaker: Professor Michael Lower

 

(Same seminar in two different venues) 

 
All are welcome!
Please register at: www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/propertylawseminar
For enquiry, please contact Ms Vivian Chen at vivianc@cuhk.edu.hk.

 

ABSTRACT

Proprietary estoppel comes into play where: (1) a landowner (A) gives a third party (R) an assurance that R has or will have an interest in A’s land; (2) R incurs detriment; (3) in reliance on A’s assurance; and (4) in these circumstances it would be unconscionable for A to go back on the assurance given. In these circumstances, R can apply for relief and the court has a discretion to order the relief that it decides would undo the unconscionability arising from A’s attempt to resile from the assurance given.
Proprietary estoppel has a part to play where A and R are a couple in a stable relationship and the property to which the assurance refers is their family home. The courts have developed an approach to proprietary estoppel that is tailored to the family context and that surmounts potential obstacles to the use of proprietary estoppel here. Thus, the assurance may be couched in vague terms but still be clear enough in its context. The concept of detriment is wide enough to include the normal incidents of forming and maintaining a family. If claimants had to show that the assurance was the only factor inducing them to incur detriment it would be difficult for a proprietary estoppel claim to succeed; A would be able to defeat the claim by pointing to R’s mixed motives since the family relationship will often provide a convincing explanation for R’s actions. The courts have developed an approach to reliance that keeps alive the realistic prospect of a successful claim.
The decision of the English Court of Appeal in Liden v Burton ([2016] EWCA Civ 275) illustrates the ways in which the law of proprietary estoppel has been adapted by the courts for use in the family home context. Arguably, the decision represents a further stage in this process of adaptation. Here the assurance was that ‘we would be together for the future, that this would be our home and that he would look after me forever’. This might appear to be an assurance that A regarded the relationship as being for the long term. In its context, it was understood as an assurance that R would have an interest in A’s property.
Proprietary estoppel and the common intention constructive trust overlap; there is no obvious reason why Ms Liden could not have relied on the common intention constructive trust. It is, however, well-established that the fact that a property has been acquired as the family home of a couple who are married or in a long term stable relationship does not lead the courts to infer the existence of a common intention constructive trust. Arguably, there is a discrepancy here between the approach taken in Liden and that taken in common intention constructive trust cases.

 

 

Equitable ownership: single framework for ‘domestic consumer’ and ‘investment’ cases

Marr v Collie ([2017] UKPC 17) is an important Privy Council decision re-stating the framework for deciding when equitable ownership differs from the ownership position as revealed by the legal title. Lord Kerr, giving the judgment, stated that the same analytical framework is to be applied regardless of context. This framework applies equally to ‘domestic consumer’ and ‘investment’ or ‘commercial’ cases. Context has a role to play when inferring actual intentions.

 

The framework

When dealing with ownership disputes:

1. determine the legal ownership of the property;
2. the onus is then on the party claiming that the ownership position in equity varies from the legal position to establish that this is the case;
3. where the only available relevant evidence is that the parties have made unequal financial contributions then it may be appropriate to have recourse to the presumed resulting trust;
4. but the court may have evidence of the parties’ actual intentions so that it would be inappropriate to apply the presumption of resulting trust;
5. in such cases, the court needs to make findings as to the parties’ actual intentions and give effect to them;
6. in doing so, the court should examine the whole course of conduct (which would include the state of the title, the reasons for the decision to put the title in joint names if that is the case, the relationship between the parties, whether the property was intended as a family home, how the acquisition was financed and so on).

 

The facts

The case was an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Bahamas. M was a Canadian citizen working in the Bahamas. C was a building contractor and a citizen of the Bahamas. M and C were in a personal relationship with each other from September 1991 to July 2008.

During that time M and C acquired several properties which were conveyed into their joint names. M paid the entire cost of purchasing the properties. When the relationship broke down, M claimed to be the sole beneficial owner applying the presumption of a resulting trust in his favour.

C claimed that the parties’ common intention was that they would be equal beneficial owners. According to C, the arrangement was that C would carry out renovation works at the properties. C also contended that M was the ‘breadwinner’ in the relationship and that this was relevant to the analysis.

M claimed that C had failed to carry out any renovation works. M also argued that his understanding was that C would make financial contributions to the acquisition of the properties that would equal his own but that no such contributions were made.

C had succeeded in the Court of Appeal. The court attached particular importance to an email from M to the bank that had provided a loan for the purchase of one of the properties. In this email, M told the bank that the property would be held in joint names, ‘meaning that we would have a 50% interest’. The Court of Appeal thought that this was very significant evidence as to the parties’ actual ownership intentions.

In the Privy Council, M’s case was that this email had not been mentioned at first instance nor in the Court of Appeal hearing. He argued that the Court of Appeal should therefore not have made use of the email in its analysis. In any event, the email was, M alleged, inadmissible for procedural reasons.

 

Clash of presumptions?

Lord Kerr considered whether cases like this gave rise to a ‘clash of presumptions’. On this view, the relationship between the parties might place the case in the ‘domestic consumer’ category; the result was a presumption that equity followed the law and that the parties were joint legal and beneficial owners. Or did the fact that the properties were bought as investments place the case in a ‘non-domestic’ category to which the presumption of resulting trust would apply ([53])?

Lord Kerr’s review of the authorities led him to reject this way of approaching the ownership question. He continued:

‘The Board considers that, save perhaps where there is no evidence from which the parties’ intentions can be identified, the answer is not to be provided by the triumph of one presumption over another. In this, as in so many areas of law, context counts for, if not everything, a lot. Context here is set by the parties’ common intention – or by the lack of it. If it is the unambiguous mutual wish of the parties, contributing in unequal shares to the purchase of property, that the joint beneficial ownership should reflect their joint legal ownership, then effect should be given to that wish. If, on the other hand, that is not their wish, or if they have not formed any intention as to beneficial ownership but had, for instance, accepted advice that the property be acquired in joint names, without considering or being aware of the possible consequences of that, the resulting trust solution may provide the answer.’ ([54]).

 

Further fact-finding necessary

The courts below had not considered the relevant facts in sufficient detail. For example, the significance of M’s email to the bank should have been considered at first instance. M should have been given adequate opportunity to make submissions with regard to it.

The Court of Appeal had not addressed the first instance finding that M’s evidence was to be preferred over C’s; this included his evidence as to ownership intentions and the expectation that C would make financial contributions that C had failed to make. The case had to be remitted for hearing before the Supreme Court of the Bahamas.

The court should also consider whether account should be taken of the contributions made by the parties to the costs of acquisition ‘in line with the decision in Muschinski‘ ([60]). This envisages that it might be appropriate (depending presumably on inferred intentions) to use the proceeds of sale of the property to repay the contributions made and then divide the balance between the parties in accordance with their common intention as to ownership ([39]).

Michael Lower

 

 

Equitable ownership of the family home: interaction of the common intention constructive trust and the presumed resulting trust

The Court of Appeal judgment in Primecredit Ltd v Yeung Chun Pang Barry ([2017] HKEC 1533, CA) deals with several important issues in the law of the ownership of the family home.

A husband (‘H’) and wife (‘W’) acquired a flat as the family home (‘the first flat’). Subsequently, the family bought a new flat  (‘the flat’) relying on the sale of the first flat to pay off a bridging loan used to acquire the flat.

W also helped to pay off the mortgage taken out to help fund the purchase. Title to the flat was in the name of the husband and S (the youngest child and the only son of the family).

Although H and S were legal joint tenants of the flat, W’s evidence was that she did not intend to make a gift to S during her life but only after H and W had died.

Primecredit (‘the creditor’) had the benefit of a charging order over the flat in respect of S’s indebtedness to the creditor.

H died and S became the sole legal owner through the right of survivorship. The creditor then sought an order for sale of the flat. W resisted this arguing that she had a beneficial interest.

Common intention constructive trust

The burden of proof was on W to show that beneficial ownership did not follow legal ownership.

There was no evidence of an express agreement that W was to have a beneficial interest in the flat. Could such a common intention be inferred? The majority of the Court of Appeal (Lam V-P and Cheung JA) thought so. Kwan JA agreed that W had a beneficial interest but on the basis of a presumed resulting trust rather than a common intention constructive trust.

Lam V-P thought that, ‘at least in the domestic context’, there was no need to resort to the resulting trust where the matter can be resolved by recourse to the common intention constructive trust ([1.3]).

He also said:

‘Since Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432 and Jones v Kernott [2012] 1 AC 776, as far as Hong Kong is concerned, the modern approach to constructive trust is to assess the common intention of the parties by a holistic approach having regard to the context, see Mo Ying v Brillex Development Ltd ([2015] 2 HKLRD 985. In a domestic context, particularly in relation to a matrimonial home, the court is not constrained in that exercise by pure direct monetary contributions to the purchase price, see the judgment of Baroness Hale at [69] in Stack.

In a Chinese setting, especially for the older generations, where explicit discussions on property rights within the family were not that common, the court has to pay regard to circumstantial matters.’ ([1.6]). Cheung J.A. made the same point ([2.9]).

Whichever route is followed, the court ‘should have regard to the inherent probabilities in light of the surrounding circumstances at the time when the property was acquired.’ (1.4]). The ‘surrounding circumstances’ (another term for ‘whole course of dealing’?) clearly do need to be taken into account when determining intention; where there are rival interpretations / accounts of the surrounding circumstances, which is the most likely?

The fact that the flat was H and W’s only property was highly relevant ([1.5] per Lam V-P). Cheung J.A. thought it credible that H and W would intend to retain ownership in their lifetimes even if S rather than W was joint legal owner ([2.97]).

Cheung JA pointed to several matters which made it appropriate to infer the necessary common intention. There was W’s evidence that there was no intention that S should have an interest during H and W’s lifetime. The common intention could be inferred from W’s financial contributions ([2.10]).

Cheung JA also said:

‘What the judge seems to have overlooked is that the mother’s interest in the matrimonial home is not solely determined by her financial contributions but by reason of her status of a married woman.’ ([2.10]).

Resulting trust

Kwan JA, alone of the members of the Court of Appeal thought that the first instance finding that there was no common intention (common to H, W and S) could not be overturned ([2.6]).

Instead, he found that W had an interest under a resulting trust. This was based on her contributions and her evidence that no gift to S was intended ([42]). Again the ‘inherent probabilities’ are relevant ([46] – [48]).

Common intention constructive trust and resulting trust?

While Lam V-P thought that the applicability of the common intention constructive trust ruled out any application for the resulting trust ([1.3]). Cheung JA thought that the presumed resulting trust still had a role to play even where the analysis was based on common intention constructive trust ([2.14]).

Charging orders and joint ownership

Lam V-P urged masters dealing with charging order applications in respect of jointly owned property not make the order absolute unless notice has been given to all co-owners ([1.9]).

Charging orders and severance

Lam V-P left open the question as to whether the making of a charging order equitably severed a joint tenancy ([1.8]).

Michael Lower

 

 

 

Common intention constructive trust: context

Cheung Lai Mui v Cheung Wai Shing ([2017] HKEC 740) concerned property that had been owned by three brothers (W, F and K) as tenants in common in equal shares.

W died and D1 and D2 inherited W’s share. When F and K died, P (K’s adopted daughter) applied to be administratrix and executrix of their respective estates.

D3 was D1’s son. He claimed to be solely beneficially entitled as a result of a common intention constructive trust. This succeeded.

This was a traditional Chinese family residing in the New Territories ([78]). D3 was the only male descendant of the family. This was a significant fact that lent credence to the allegation of the common intention.

There was evidence of express discussions concerning the common intention and other surrounding circumstances that made it likely that the common intention had come into existence.

The lack of any formal written evidence of the common intention was understandable in the family context ([94] – [95]).

A defence of estoppel by standing by also succeeded ([103]).

So did D3’s adverse possession claim. He had erected a gate. This was an unambiguous assertion of control even though the gate had not been locked ([108]).

Michael Lower