Gissing v Gissing
A person who is not the legal owner can claim a beneficial interest in the home only if there is a common intention that they should have one, on which they have acted.
Facts
The matrimonial home was bought in Mr Gissing's sole name, with the help of a mortgage and a loan from his employer. Mrs Gissing made no direct contribution to the purchase price or the mortgage payments, but she paid for furniture and for laying a lawn, and paid for some of her own and her son's clothes and household expenses from her earnings. When the marriage ended, she claimed a beneficial interest.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that Mrs Gissing had no beneficial interest. Lord Diplock said that a person claiming a beneficial interest in land held in the name of another must show a common intention, inferred from the parties' words or conduct, that they should share the beneficial interest, and that the claimant acted to their detriment in reliance on that intention. Mrs Gissing's contributions were not referable to the acquisition of the house, and did not justify an inference that the parties intended her to have a share.
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
- 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
- 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.
