Bannister v Bannister
A purchaser who orally agreed that the seller could live in the property rent free for life held it on constructive trust for her, despite the lack of writing.
Facts
Mrs Bannister sold two cottages to her brother in law for less than their value, on his oral promise that she could live in one of them rent free for as long as she liked. The conveyance did not mention this. He later tried to evict her, arguing that the promise was unenforceable, because it was not in writing as required for trusts of land.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Bannister was entitled to remain. Scott LJ said that it is a fraud for a person to whom land is conveyed on the understanding that he will hold it for another to deny the trust and claim the land for himself, and that in such a case equity will impose a constructive trust. The statutory requirement of writing could not be used as an instrument of fraud. Mrs Bannister was held to have a life interest under the Settled Land Act 1925.
Related cases on constructive trusts
- Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1989] Ch 1
- Banner Homes Group plc v Luff Developments Ltd [2000] Ch 372
- Binions v Evans [1972] Ch 359
- Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd [1981] Ch 105
- Cleaver v Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association [1892] 1 QB 147
- Crossco No 4 Unlimited v Jolan Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1619
- Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886
- Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, [2012] 1 AC 776
Studying equity and trusts? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
