Curran v Collins [2015]
Share
Curran v Collins [2015] EWCA Civ 404 delves into the complexities of constructive trusts, particularly focusing on the significance of shared intentions and the impact of excuses provided in property matters. The Court of Appeal rendered a decision emphasising the importance of objective interpretation in discerning shared intentions and scrutinising the validity of excuses.
The defendant, a man, individually purchased a series of properties with the intention of cohabiting with the claimant, a woman. The crux of the matter arose when she claimed a beneficial interest in one of the properties. Notably, the defendant presented an excuse for not registering her name on another property, asserting that it would have been too expensive due to insurance premiums.
The Court of Appeal held that the defendant retained sole beneficial interest in the property. The judgment, as delivered by Arden LJ and Lewison LJ, shed light on the criteria for proving a constructive trust and examined the role of excuses in shaping shared intentions.
The court held that the claimant bore the burden of proving a constructive trust, relying on the principles established in Grant v Edwards [1986]. This required demonstrating a reasonable belief in the common intention that she should have a share in the properties and showing detrimental reliance on that common intention.
The defendant's repeated assertions that the property was solely his negated any reasonable belief in a common intention to share. The court found that there was no evidence of detrimental reliance, as the claimant made no direct or indirect financial contributions.
The court emphasised the objective interpretation of words in the context of shared intention, citing Jones v Kernott [2011]. In this case, the excuse provided by the defendant, regarding the expense of registration, was interpreted in light of the absence of shared living arrangements and the claimant's limited contributions.
Lewison LJ distinguished the present case from Eves v Eves [1975] and Grant v Edwards. In those cases, the couples purchased properties for cohabitation, and positive representations were made about registering the claimant's name on the title. Such facts were absent in the current scenario.
The court clarified that the mere giving of a specious excuse does not necessarily or usually lead to an inference that the recipient can reasonably regard herself as having a share in the property. Each case must be assessed on its unique circumstances.
Curran v Collins provides valuable insights into the nuanced considerations involved in constructive trusts, emphasising the need for objective interpretation of shared intentions and scrutinising the validity of excuses within the context of property ownership disputes.
The defendant, a man, individually purchased a series of properties with the intention of cohabiting with the claimant, a woman. The crux of the matter arose when she claimed a beneficial interest in one of the properties. Notably, the defendant presented an excuse for not registering her name on another property, asserting that it would have been too expensive due to insurance premiums.
The Court of Appeal held that the defendant retained sole beneficial interest in the property. The judgment, as delivered by Arden LJ and Lewison LJ, shed light on the criteria for proving a constructive trust and examined the role of excuses in shaping shared intentions.
The court held that the claimant bore the burden of proving a constructive trust, relying on the principles established in Grant v Edwards [1986]. This required demonstrating a reasonable belief in the common intention that she should have a share in the properties and showing detrimental reliance on that common intention.
The defendant's repeated assertions that the property was solely his negated any reasonable belief in a common intention to share. The court found that there was no evidence of detrimental reliance, as the claimant made no direct or indirect financial contributions.
The court emphasised the objective interpretation of words in the context of shared intention, citing Jones v Kernott [2011]. In this case, the excuse provided by the defendant, regarding the expense of registration, was interpreted in light of the absence of shared living arrangements and the claimant's limited contributions.
Lewison LJ distinguished the present case from Eves v Eves [1975] and Grant v Edwards. In those cases, the couples purchased properties for cohabitation, and positive representations were made about registering the claimant's name on the title. Such facts were absent in the current scenario.
The court clarified that the mere giving of a specious excuse does not necessarily or usually lead to an inference that the recipient can reasonably regard herself as having a share in the property. Each case must be assessed on its unique circumstances.
Curran v Collins provides valuable insights into the nuanced considerations involved in constructive trusts, emphasising the need for objective interpretation of shared intentions and scrutinising the validity of excuses within the context of property ownership disputes.
