Key Facts
- •Husband and wife (Mr. and Mrs. Cynberg) purchased a property in joint names.
- •They separated, and the husband (Mr. Cynberg) allegedly agreed the wife (Mrs. Cynberg) could have the property.
- •Husband later went bankrupt.
- •Trustees in bankruptcy (Appellants) claimed an interest in the property.
- •Wife argued a common intention constructive trust or proprietary estoppel gave her sole ownership.
- •District Judge ruled in favor of the wife.
- •Trustees appealed on four grounds.
Legal Principles
An express declaration of trust is conclusive unless varied by subsequent agreement or affected by proprietary estoppel.
Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17
A subsequent agreement that varies an express declaration of trust can be informal, including a common intention constructive trust.
Clarke v Meadus [2010] EWHC 3117 (Ch)
For proprietary estoppel, detriment must be sufficient to create unconscionability, considering countervailing benefits and causal link between assurances and reliance.
Various cases discussed, including Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27
In proprietary estoppel, the timing of the estoppel's creation is crucial, particularly concerning the five-year lookback period of section 341(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Insolvency Act 1986, section 341(1)(a)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed on Ground 1 (express declaration of trust overridden by subsequent common intention constructive trust).
A common intention constructive trust can act as a 'subsequent agreement' to override an express declaration of trust; this interpretation avoids an arbitrary distinction between constructive trusts and proprietary estoppels.
Appeal dismissed on Ground 2 (sufficient detriment for proprietary estoppel).
Detriment included not just home improvements but also foregoing ancillary relief and paying the mortgage; countervailing benefits were outweighed by the detriment.
Appeal dismissed on Ground 3 (sufficient assurances for proprietary estoppel).
The Judge's finding that a clear agreement existed in 2009 was supported by the evidence, despite subsequent solicitor correspondence suggesting otherwise.
Appeal dismissed on Ground 4 (proprietary estoppel arose in 2009).
Detriment (mortgage payments) predated the home improvements and occurred outside the five-year lookback period, thus the counterclaim under section 339 of the IA 1986 failed.