Ann Nilsson & Anor v Collette Cynberg
[2024] EWHC 2164 (Ch)
Nigel Fox & Anor v Marcus Nathan Bent & Ors
20 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2179 (Ch)
High Court
A dad bought a house, saying it was for his daughter. When he went bankrupt, the bankruptcy people tried to take the house. The court said the house belonged to the daughter because the dad had promised it to her, and the daughter’s mother made life decisions based on this promise (even though the daughter was a baby). The appeal court agreed; even though the daughter was too young to agree herself, her mother acted for her, making it fair for the house to stay with the daughter.
Key Facts
- •Marcus Bent (Respondent 1) declared bankrupt.
- •Property in Surrey registered in Bent's name.
- •Joint trustees in bankruptcy (Appellants) sought possession and sale.
- •Respondents claimed property held on trust for Bent's daughter (Respondent 4).
- •Judge Jones found a constructive trust for the daughter.
- •Appellants appealed, arguing no reliance or detriment by the daughter.
- •Appeal court considered three grounds (two granted permission, one renewed).
Legal Principles
Common intention constructive trust requires detrimental reliance by the beneficiary; detriment by proxy insufficient.
Case law on common intention constructive trusts
Appeal court will only interfere with findings of fact if unsupported by evidence or no reasonable judge could have reached them.
Haringey LBC v Ahmed [2017] EWCA Civ 1861, Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464
Section 53(1)(b) Law of Property Act 1925 requires written declaration of trust for land, except for resulting, implied, or constructive trusts.
Law of Property Act 1925, s.53(1)(b), s.53(2)
A constructive trust arises where the trustee's conduct makes it inequitable to deny the beneficiary's interest; induced action to detriment based on reasonable belief of acquiring interest.
Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886
Detriment in constructive trust claims does not need to be financially quantifiable, but must be substantial.
Winter v Winter [2024] EWCA Civ 699, other case law cited
A common intention constructive trust cannot arise if one party lacks capacity (e.g., a minor) to form such an intention.
De Bruyne v De Bruyne [2010] EWCA Civ 519
Outcomes
Permission to appeal refused on Ground Two (factual challenge to Judge's findings).
Appellants failed to show Judge's findings were plainly wrong; court unwilling to retry the case on facts.
Permission granted to amend grounds of appeal to include Ground Four (legal point about minors and constructive trusts).
Ground Four raised an arguable point of law linked to existing grounds and was not materially prejudicial to respondents despite being late.
Appeal dismissed on Grounds One, Three, and Four.
Ground Four failed because the Judge found the agreement was between Bent and Clark (acting for the daughter), not Bent and the minor daughter directly. Grounds One and Three failed because the Judge correctly found detrimental reliance by the daughter through her mother's actions.