Grant v Edwards
An excuse for not putting a partner's name on the title is evidence of a common intention to share, and contributions to household expenses that enabled the legal owner to pay the mortgage were sufficient detriment.
Facts
Mr Edwards and Mrs Grant lived together. He bought a house in his name and his brother's name, telling her that her name should not be on the title because it might prejudice her divorce proceedings against her husband. She made substantial contributions to the household expenses, which enabled Mr Edwards to pay the mortgage instalments. When they separated, she claimed a share in the house.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Grant was entitled to a half share of the house. Nourse LJ said that the excuse showed a common intention that she was to have an interest, and that she had acted to her detriment in reliance on it, by contributing to expenses that she would not otherwise have been expected to meet. Browne-Wilkinson V-C said that, once a common intention is established, any act done by the claimant to her detriment relating to the joint lives of the parties is sufficient, and that equity should quantify the shares by reference to the parties' intentions.
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
- Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886
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.
