Lecture 12 Updated - Trusts of Land Notes
Nilsson v Cynberg [2024] EWHC 2164 Facts: Mr. and Mrs. Cynberg bought a house in 2001
as joint tenants. They separated in 2009 and agreed verbally that Mrs. Cynberg would own
the house. She paid the mortgage and all expenses from then on. Ownership was never
legally changed. Mr. Cynberg went bankrupt, and his trustees claimed he still owned half.
Held: The court ruled that the verbal agreement and Mrs. Cynberg's actions created a
common intention constructive trust. Mrs. Cynberg was entitled to full ownership despite no
formal legal change.
Both create equitable property rights without formal legal ownership. Both require reliance
and detriment, but in different ways.
• Proprietary estoppel: Based on a promise, reliance, and detriment.
• Common intention constructive trust: Based on a shared agreement (express or implied)
and actions (e.g., paying mortgage).
• Remedies differ: Estoppel is more flexible; trusts focus on shared intention and
contributions.
• Courts prefer constructive trusts if a clear agreement exists; estoppel is a fallback if no
agreement is found.
Southwell v Blackburn [2014] EWCA Civ 1347 Facts: Mr. Southwell and Ms. Blackburn lived
together for 10 years in a house owned only by Mr. Southwell. Ms. Blackburn did not pay for
the house or the mortgage. Mr. Southwell promised Ms. Blackburn she would have long-
term security in the home. Trusting this promise, Ms. Blackburn gave up her secure rented
home and spent her savings on their shared life.(household expenses Held: • The Court of
Appeal agreed with the trial judge and awarded Ms. Blackburn £28,500. • The court ruled
that Mr. Southwell's promise led Ms. Blackburn to act in a way that harmed her, creating a
legal claim called proprietary estoppel. The money compensated Ms. Blackburn for what she
lost because she relied on Mr. Southwell's promise.
Liden v Burton [2016] EWCA Civ 275 Facts: Ms. Liden and Mr. Burton cohabited in Mr.
Burton's property, "Willow Beck," from 2001 to 2013.Throughout this period, Ms. Liden
contributed £500 monthly towards household expenses. • Ms. Liden claimed that Mr.
Burton assured her that these payments were "towards the house," implying she would
acquire an interest in the property. • Upon their separation, Ms. Liden sought recognition of
her beneficial interest in the property. Held: • The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's
decision, granting Ms. Liden a 10% beneficial interest in "Willow Beck." The court
determined that Mr. Burton's assurances and Ms. Liden's financial contributions established
a proprietary estoppel. The 10% interest was deemed appropriate compensation for Ms.
Liden's contributions and reliance on Mr. Burton's assurances.
, Michael Lower's article analyzes Liden v Burton [2016] EWCA Civ 275 and its impact on
proprietary estoppel in family home cases. Key issue: Mr. Burton assured Ms. Liden they
would share a home and he would "look after her forever." Ms. Liden relied on this,
contributing financially to household expenses. Court found a proprietary estoppel claim,
giving Ms. Liden a 10% beneficial interest in the property. Lower highlights how proprietary
estoppel and common intention constructive trusts often overlap. The decision confirms
that informal assurances in relationships can create equitable property rights.
Hudson v Hathaway [2022] EWCA Civ 1648 Facts: Mr. Hudson and Ms. Hathaway bought a
house in joint names in 1990. Mr. Hudson paid more of the mortgage. In 2013, they agreed
by email that Ms. Hathaway would take sole ownership of the house, and Mr. Hudson would
keep other assets. Ms. Hathaway relied on this agreement and didn't pursue other assets. •
In 2019, Mr. Hudson sought to sell the house and split the proceeds. Held: The Court of
Appeal ruled Ms. Hathaway was the sole equitable owner of the property. The email
agreement was valid under section 53(1)(c) of the Law of Property Act 1925. Ms.
Hathaway's reliance on the agreement to forgo other claims created a constructive trust.
Title: "Common law marriage and cohabitation" (House of Commons Library, authored by
Catherine Fairbairn, published 3 November 2022). Cohabiting couples do not automatically
gain rights to each other's property.
Constructive trusts: Financial contributions (e.g., mortgage payments) may give nontitle
holders a beneficial interest in the property.
Resulting trusts: Partners contributing to the purchase or mortgage may acquire an
equitable share, even without legal title. No automatic rights for cohabitants to the family
home upon separation.
Written agreements (e.g., cohabitation agreements, declarations of trust) help clarify
property ownership and prevent disputes.
Title: The Living Together Campaign: Property Rights for Cohabitants Authors: Professor
Anne Barlow, Dr Carole Burgoyne, Dr Janet Smithson (University of Exeter), Ministry of
Justice Research Series 5/07, July 2007
Janet highlights that cohabitants, unlike married couples, do not have automatic rights to
the family home. Property ownership is generally based on who holds the legal title.
However, a non-owning partner may still claim a share through a constructive trust, if they
have made significant financial or non-financial contributions, such as paying the mortgage
or improving the property. A resulting trust may also arise where someone has contributed
to the purchase or mortgage but is not named on the title.
Nilsson v Cynberg [2024] EWHC 2164 Facts: Mr. and Mrs. Cynberg bought a house in 2001
as joint tenants. They separated in 2009 and agreed verbally that Mrs. Cynberg would own
the house. She paid the mortgage and all expenses from then on. Ownership was never
legally changed. Mr. Cynberg went bankrupt, and his trustees claimed he still owned half.
Held: The court ruled that the verbal agreement and Mrs. Cynberg's actions created a
common intention constructive trust. Mrs. Cynberg was entitled to full ownership despite no
formal legal change.
Both create equitable property rights without formal legal ownership. Both require reliance
and detriment, but in different ways.
• Proprietary estoppel: Based on a promise, reliance, and detriment.
• Common intention constructive trust: Based on a shared agreement (express or implied)
and actions (e.g., paying mortgage).
• Remedies differ: Estoppel is more flexible; trusts focus on shared intention and
contributions.
• Courts prefer constructive trusts if a clear agreement exists; estoppel is a fallback if no
agreement is found.
Southwell v Blackburn [2014] EWCA Civ 1347 Facts: Mr. Southwell and Ms. Blackburn lived
together for 10 years in a house owned only by Mr. Southwell. Ms. Blackburn did not pay for
the house or the mortgage. Mr. Southwell promised Ms. Blackburn she would have long-
term security in the home. Trusting this promise, Ms. Blackburn gave up her secure rented
home and spent her savings on their shared life.(household expenses Held: • The Court of
Appeal agreed with the trial judge and awarded Ms. Blackburn £28,500. • The court ruled
that Mr. Southwell's promise led Ms. Blackburn to act in a way that harmed her, creating a
legal claim called proprietary estoppel. The money compensated Ms. Blackburn for what she
lost because she relied on Mr. Southwell's promise.
Liden v Burton [2016] EWCA Civ 275 Facts: Ms. Liden and Mr. Burton cohabited in Mr.
Burton's property, "Willow Beck," from 2001 to 2013.Throughout this period, Ms. Liden
contributed £500 monthly towards household expenses. • Ms. Liden claimed that Mr.
Burton assured her that these payments were "towards the house," implying she would
acquire an interest in the property. • Upon their separation, Ms. Liden sought recognition of
her beneficial interest in the property. Held: • The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's
decision, granting Ms. Liden a 10% beneficial interest in "Willow Beck." The court
determined that Mr. Burton's assurances and Ms. Liden's financial contributions established
a proprietary estoppel. The 10% interest was deemed appropriate compensation for Ms.
Liden's contributions and reliance on Mr. Burton's assurances.
, Michael Lower's article analyzes Liden v Burton [2016] EWCA Civ 275 and its impact on
proprietary estoppel in family home cases. Key issue: Mr. Burton assured Ms. Liden they
would share a home and he would "look after her forever." Ms. Liden relied on this,
contributing financially to household expenses. Court found a proprietary estoppel claim,
giving Ms. Liden a 10% beneficial interest in the property. Lower highlights how proprietary
estoppel and common intention constructive trusts often overlap. The decision confirms
that informal assurances in relationships can create equitable property rights.
Hudson v Hathaway [2022] EWCA Civ 1648 Facts: Mr. Hudson and Ms. Hathaway bought a
house in joint names in 1990. Mr. Hudson paid more of the mortgage. In 2013, they agreed
by email that Ms. Hathaway would take sole ownership of the house, and Mr. Hudson would
keep other assets. Ms. Hathaway relied on this agreement and didn't pursue other assets. •
In 2019, Mr. Hudson sought to sell the house and split the proceeds. Held: The Court of
Appeal ruled Ms. Hathaway was the sole equitable owner of the property. The email
agreement was valid under section 53(1)(c) of the Law of Property Act 1925. Ms.
Hathaway's reliance on the agreement to forgo other claims created a constructive trust.
Title: "Common law marriage and cohabitation" (House of Commons Library, authored by
Catherine Fairbairn, published 3 November 2022). Cohabiting couples do not automatically
gain rights to each other's property.
Constructive trusts: Financial contributions (e.g., mortgage payments) may give nontitle
holders a beneficial interest in the property.
Resulting trusts: Partners contributing to the purchase or mortgage may acquire an
equitable share, even without legal title. No automatic rights for cohabitants to the family
home upon separation.
Written agreements (e.g., cohabitation agreements, declarations of trust) help clarify
property ownership and prevent disputes.
Title: The Living Together Campaign: Property Rights for Cohabitants Authors: Professor
Anne Barlow, Dr Carole Burgoyne, Dr Janet Smithson (University of Exeter), Ministry of
Justice Research Series 5/07, July 2007
Janet highlights that cohabitants, unlike married couples, do not have automatic rights to
the family home. Property ownership is generally based on who holds the legal title.
However, a non-owning partner may still claim a share through a constructive trust, if they
have made significant financial or non-financial contributions, such as paying the mortgage
or improving the property. A resulting trust may also arise where someone has contributed
to the purchase or mortgage but is not named on the title.
