Capehorn v Harris
The court can only impute an intention as to the size of the parties' shares, not as to whether they intended to share at all.
Facts
Mr Harris and Ms Capehorn had a long relationship and worked together in a business run from properties owned by Mr Harris. When the relationship ended, Ms Capehorn claimed a beneficial interest in the properties. The trial judge found that there had been an agreement that she would have an interest and then decided what share was fair.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal allowed Mr Harris's appeal. Sales LJ said that, where property is in one person's sole name, the claimant must first show an actual common intention, express or inferred from conduct, that she should have a beneficial interest. Only then can the court, if the parties' intention as to the size of the share cannot be found, impute an intention by deciding what is fair. The judge's findings did not show that there was an actual common intention that Ms Capehorn should have an interest in the properties.
Related cases on trusts of the family home
- Abbott v Abbott [2007] UKPC 53
- Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317
- Curran v Collins [2015] EWCA Civ 404
- Eves v Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1338
- Fowler v Barron [2008] EWCA Civ 377
- Geary v Rankine [2012] EWCA Civ 555
- Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886
- Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638
Studying land law? 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.
