Midland Bank plc v Cooke
Once a common intention to share is established, the court can look at the whole course of dealing between the parties to quantify the shares.
Facts
Mr Cooke bought the matrimonial home in his sole name, with the help of a mortgage and a wedding present of money from his parents, which was treated as a gift to both spouses. Mrs Cooke's direct contribution to the purchase was therefore half of the wedding present, a small proportion of the price. Over the years, she contributed to household expenses and improvements, and brought up the children. When the bank sought possession, a question arose as to the size of her beneficial share.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Cooke was entitled to a half share. Waite LJ said that, once a direct contribution establishes a beneficial interest, the court is not limited to a share proportionate to that contribution, but must survey the whole course of dealing between the parties in relation to the property, taking into account all conduct which throws light on the question of what shares were intended. The parties had shared everything during their marriage, so the court inferred that they intended to share the house equally.
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.
