Key Facts
- •Financial remedy proceedings between a wife ('P') and husband ('Q'), with Q's parents ('R' and 'S') as intervenors.
- •Disputes centered around the beneficial ownership of four properties (Property 1, Property 2, Property 3, Property 5).
- •Applicant (P) claimed beneficial interest in Property 1 and Property 5, alleging constructive and resulting trusts.
- •Respondents (Q, R, and S) denied applicant's claims, asserting the facts didn't support them.
- •The applicant's case was considered to be a 'moveable feast' with shifting arguments and lack of clear pleadings.
- •Significant evidence was presented from various sources including Form E's, witness statements, and bank statements.
- •The court considered evidence of financial contributions, discussions, and the nature of the parties' relationships to determine beneficial ownership.
- •The applicant's evidence was deemed inconsistent and unreliable in several instances, with suggestions of untruthfulness regarding benefits claims and the IVA.
Legal Principles
Equity follows the law; presumption of beneficial ownership aligning with legal title.
Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17
Constructive trust can be established by express common intention or inferred agreement based on conduct.
Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107
Indirect contributions to mortgage may suffice to infer common intention (constructive trust).
Le Foe v Le Foe [2001] 2 FLR 970
Resulting trust analysis is applicable when property is purchased for development or letting.
Laskar v Laskar [2008] 2 FLR 589
Presumption of advancement is a weak presumption and can be rebutted by slight evidence.
Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777
Burden of proof lies with the person asserting a particular fact.
Standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Witness's lying on one matter does not invalidate all their testimony.
R v Lucas [1981] QB 720
Witness recollection is fallible and may be affected by various factors.
Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Limited & another [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm)
Need for proper pleading in complex property disputes.
TL v ML (Ancillary Relief: Claim against Assets of Extended Family) [2005] EWHC 2860 (Fam)
Outcomes
Applicant's claims regarding beneficial interest in Property 1 and Property 5 dismissed.
Applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof; evidence deemed unreliable and inconsistent; claims considered hopeless and based on shifting arguments and untruthfulness.