Curran v Collins
An excuse given for not putting a partner's name on the title is not evidence of a common intention to share unless it implies that she would otherwise have been included.
Facts
Ms Curran and Mr Collins lived together for many years. Mr Collins bought a house in his sole name. When Ms Curran asked why her name was not on the title, he said that they could not afford the extra cost of insurance cover for joint names. When the relationship ended, she claimed that this was an excuse, like those in Eves v Eves and Grant v Edwards, from which a common intention could be inferred.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Ms Curran had no beneficial interest. Arden LJ said that an excuse may be evidence of a common intention to share, but only where it implies that, but for the reason given, the claimant would have been a joint owner. Here, the excuse given was consistent with Mr Collins having no intention that Ms Curran should share, and it did not establish that he had agreed she would have an interest.
Related cases on trusts of the family home
- Abbott v Abbott [2007] UKPC 53
- Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317
- Capehorn v Harris [2015] EWCA Civ 955
- 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.
