Paul v Constance
Words and conduct showing an intention that money in a bank account should be shared can create an express trust, even without any technical language.
Facts
Mr Constance lived with Mrs Paul, although they were not married. He received £950 in damages for an injury at work, and paid it into a bank account in his sole name. He told Mrs Paul on several occasions that the money was as much hers as his. They paid some joint bingo winnings into the account and made a joint withdrawal. When Mr Constance died, his estranged wife claimed the money in the account, and Mrs Paul claimed that it was held on trust for both of them.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Constance had declared himself trustee of the money for himself and Mrs Paul in equal shares. Scarman LJ said that, although the words used were not technical and Mr Constance may not have realised that he was creating a trust, the words this money is as much yours as mine, repeated on several occasions, and their conduct in relation to the account, showed an intention that the money should be held for both of them. Mrs Paul was entitled to half of it.
Related cases on certainty of intention and subject matter
- Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry (1884) 27 Ch D 394
- Boyce v Boyce (1849) 16 Sim 476
- Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury [1905] AC 84
- Re Golay's Will Trusts [1965] 1 WLR 969
- Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd [1995] 1 AC 74
- Hunter v Moss [1994] 1 WLR 452
- Jones v Lock (1865) LR 1 Ch App 25
- Re Kayford Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 279
Studying equity and trusts? 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.
