Marr v Collie
The common intention approach in Stack v Dowden is not limited to domestic homes, and may apply to investment properties bought by a couple.
Facts
Mr Marr and Mr Collie were in a relationship for about 17 years and lived in the Bahamas. They bought several properties, mostly as investments, in their joint names, although Mr Marr, who earned much more, paid most of the purchase price. Mr Collie contributed by doing work on the properties and in other ways. When they separated, Mr Marr claimed that the properties were held on a resulting trust in proportion to their financial contributions.
Legal principle
The Privy Council held that the courts below were wrong to apply a presumption of resulting trust automatically, merely because the properties had been bought as investments. Lord Kerr said that the Stack v Dowden approach, which looks at the parties' common intention, is not confined to domestic homes, and may apply where a couple in a personal relationship buy property in joint names, even if the property is an investment. Whether the presumption of resulting trust or the common intention approach applies depends on the context. The case was sent back for the facts to be reconsidered.
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.
