Indirect Contributions to the Purchase of Property
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1993.tb00958.x |
| Date | 01 March 1993 |
| Published date | 01 March 1993 |
| Author | Patrick O'Hagan |
The Modem Law Review
[Vol.
56
underlying most of these disputes is a refusal by one authority to accept a different
authority’s interpretation
of
the The second approach meets this problem
and also counteracts the criticism of the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, the second
approach is no more cumbersome than the present system, which involves time-
wasting enquiries by the referring local authority
.36
Duplication by the first
authority takes place also under the present system.
In November 1989, the Government completed their
Review ofrhe Homelessness
Legi~lution.3~
While they suggested that only ‘1% of households accepted as
homeless are referred from one authority to another,’38 no mention was made of
the judicial criticism of the procedure. Again the opportunity to consider not only
wholesale, but also piecemeal, reform was spumed. This latest case (together with
the soaring statistics) shows how complacent that review really was.
Indirect Contributions to the Purchase
of
Property
Patrick
O’Hagan
*
The formula to determine whether a mistress, having no legal title to her cohabitee’s
home, has obtained a beneficial interest in that property by means of indirect
contributions to its purchase was restated recently by the House of Lords in
Lloyds
Bunk
v
Rosser.’
Before an indirect contribution will attract an equity, two separate
hurdles must be cleared. First, there must have been discussions between the
cohabitees leading to an agreement, arrangement or understanding as to the where-
abouts of the equitable interest in the property. Secondly, if the ‘common intention’
hurdle is overcome, the court proceeds to search for detrimental reliance on the
part of the claimant on foot of the understanding or representation. If both common
intention and detrimental reliance are found, then the indirect contributor may obtain
an equitable interest by dint of either proprietary estoppel or a constructive trust.2
Waite
J
sought to apply the above formula in
Hummond
v
Mit~hell.~
The perti-
nent facts can be briefly stated. F met
M
in 1977 and after a short space of time
she moved into his flat.
F
continued in employment until she became pregnant in
1979, at which time
M
persuaded her to give up her job. After their first child’s
birth,
M
told F that he intended to marry her upon obtaining a divorce from his
first wife. Although
F
gave up her job, throughout the duration of her relationship
with
M
she played a very active and enthusiastic role in promoting
M’s
business.
In 1979
M
bought the family home, a bungalow in Essex, whose beneficial title
was in issue in these proceedings. Half the purchase monies were raised by the
sale of
M’s
former home, the balance was raised by a loan secured by a mortgage.
35
See particularly
R
v
Tower Hamlets LBC, exp Camden LBC
(1989) 21
HLR
197.
36
For example, Newham had
to
consider the whole process
of
whether Mr Ullah was unintentionally
homeless with a priority need, even though there was some evidence that they realised that a local
connection could be made
[1992]
2
All ER 767, 773d.
The Governmenr’s Review
ofrhe
Homelessness Legislation
(Department
of
the Environment,
1989).
37
38
ibid
para
17.
*Cayman Islands’ Law School.
1
2
3
224
[1990]
1
AllER 1111; Gardner(1991)54MLR
126;Thompson[1990]54Conv315;O’Hagan
[1991]
42
NILQ
238.
See generally
D.
Hayton
[I9901 54
Conv
370.
[1992] 2 All ER 109.
0
The Modern Law Review Limited
1993
To continue reading
Request your trial