Midland Bank plc v Cooke

Last updated
Midland Bank plc v Cooke
Court Court of Appeal
Full case nameMidland Bank plc v Graham Edward Cooke and Jane Marie Cooke
Decided7 July 1995
Citation(s)[1995] EWCA Civ 12
[1995] 4 All ER 562
(1995) 27 HLR 733
Transcript(s) HTML Version of Judgment at bailii.org
Case history
Prior action(s)Appellant wife awarded 6% before HHJ Hamilton sitting on appeal in the Bedford County Court as Administrative Court
Subsequent action(s)none
Case opinions
Held: A. In a case where the bride's parents were paying for the wedding and reception and the bridegroom's parents were providing a contribution to the purchase price of the matrimonial home, it would not only be sensible to draw the inference that the bridegroom's parents intended to make a present to them both.
B. The court is not bound to deal with the matter on the strict basis of the trust resulting from the cash contribution to the purchase price, and is free to attribute to the parties an intention to share the beneficial interest in some different proportions.
C.Positive evidence that the parties neither discussed nor intended any agreement as to the proportions of their beneficial interest does not preclude the court, on general equitable principles, from inferring one.
Case opinions
Decision by Waite LJ
Concurrence Schiemann LJ
Stuart-Smith LJ
Keywords
Constructive trust; resulting trust; sole ownership of cohabited family home; secured business loan against family home; undue influence; wedding gifts and costs being equally shared

Midland Bank plc v Cooke [1995] is an English land law case, concerning constructive trusts; and at first instance (never appealed) proven undue influence in law as to a secured business loan and later refinance.

Contents

First, it clarified the law as to wedding gifts. [1]

Second, it held that so long as some financial contribution, however, small can be identified as going to the purchase of a home, the court may quantify that contribution in a greater amount than initially given. It opted for a 50:50 division looking at both spouses' conduct in the round. [2]

Third, it clarified that if proven the spouses had never discussed any details of joint ownership, where one spouse legally owns the whole family home then the court often should from equitable principles infer agreement as to proportions of their beneficial interests. [3]

Facts

The street of the family home. New Row - High Street - Abbotsley - geograph.org.uk - 346301.jpg
The street of the family home.

Mr Cooke paid £8500 at age 19 for the house the month before he was married. He achieved this through a mortgage loan from a bank, his own savings, and a pre-wedding gift from his parents of £1100. Mrs Cooke's parents paid for the wedding. The Cookes replaced that mortgage with one from Midland Bank plc to secure Mr Cooke's business overdraft. Mrs Cooke signed a consent form for her interest to be postponed to the bank's security. The property was put into Mr Cooke's name as sole legal owner. Midland Bank plc now demanded repayment of £52,000 and sought possession. Mrs Cooke argued her signature was obtained by undue influence. (Mrs Cooke admitted at trial that the married couple had never discussed any beneficial entitlement.) [4]

The Judge held the bank knew of Mr Cooke's undue influence and that she had an equitable interest given that the wedding gift was partly hers. The bank did not (cross-)appeal on this finding. The bank cross-appealed by alleging that Mrs Cooke had a 0% interest. The Judge assessed her interest as 6% of the property, and Mrs Cooke appealed arguing for a 50% interest. [4]

Judgment

The Court of Appeal held that the gift was made to the couple jointly (50:50). This was proof of a common intention to have a beneficial interest. But in quantifying her interest the financial contribution was not the only thing which mattered: the whole course of dealing did. On the facts it was clear that the presumed intention was that she should have an equal share of the beneficial interest. Waite LJ observed that people usually will not talk about legal entitlements to property when young and embarking on a relationship, and says that should not leave them ‘beyond the pale of equity’s assistance’. The parties shared everything equally, including ‘the upbringing of their children.’ He continued as follows. [4]

Stuart-Smith LJ and Schiemann LJ concurred. [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

Unconscionability

Unconscionability is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.

<i>Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset</i>

Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset[1990] UKHL 14 is an English land law, trusts law and matrimonial law case. It specifically deals with the translation into money of physical contributions from a cohabitee or spouse, under which its principles have been largely superseded.

<i>Gissing v Gissing</i>

Gissing v Gissing [1970] UKHL 3 is an English land law and trust law case dealing with constructive trusts arising in relationships between married couple. It may no longer represent good law, since the decisions of Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott.

<i>City of London Building Society v Flegg</i>

City of London Building Society v Flegg[1987] UKHL 6 is an English land law case decided in the House of Lords on the relationship between potential overriding interests and the concept of overreaching.

<i>Hussey v Palmer</i>

Hussey v Palmer [1972] EWCA Civ 1 is an English trusts law case of the Court of Appeal. It concerned the equitable remedy of constructive trusts. It invokes the equitable maxim, "equity regards the substance and not the form."

<i>Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2)</i>

Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge [2001] UKHL 44 is a leading case relevant for English land law and English contract law on the circumstances under which actual and presumed undue influence can be argued to vitiate consent to a contract.

<i>Barclays Bank plc v OBrien</i> English contract law case

Barclays Bank plc v O’Brien[1993] UKHL 6 is an English contract law case relating to undue influence. It set out the basic categories of undue influence as,

<i>Errington v Wood</i>

Errington v Wood[1951] EWCA Civ 2 is an English contract law and English land law judicial decision of the Court of Appeal concerning agreement and the right to specific performance of an assurance that is relied on.

English land law law of real property in England and Wales

English land law is the law of real property in England and Wales. Because of its heavy historical and social significance, land is usually seen as the most important part of English property law. Ownership of land has its roots in the feudal system established by William the Conqueror after 1066, and with a gradually diminishing aristocratic presence, now sees a large number of owners playing in an active market for real estate. The modern law's sources derive from the old courts of common law and equity, along with legislation such as the Law of Property Act 1925, the Settled Land Act 1925, the Land Charges Act 1972, the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and the Land Registration Act 2002. At its core, English land law involves the acquisition, content and priority of rights and obligations among people with interests in land. Having a property right in land, as opposed to a contractual or some other personal right, matters because it creates privileges over other people's claims, particularly if the land is sold on, the possessor goes insolvent, or when claiming various remedies, like specific performance, in court.

<i>Jones v Kernott</i>

Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 is a decision by the UK Supreme Court concerning the beneficial entitlement to a co-owned family home under a constructive trust. The court ruled there was a 90:10 split of ownership in favour of the main child-caring partner who contributed 80% of the equity to the home in which she lived. The non-resident partner had also ceased to pay bills and maintenance for the children for a considerable time.

<i>Abbey National Building Society v Cann</i>

Abbey National Building Society v Cann[1990] UKHL 3 is an English land law case concerning the right of a person with an equitable interest in a home to remain in actual occupation, if a bank has a charge and is seeking repossession. A controversial decision, it held that "actual occupation" entails some degree of permanence, and that if someone buys a property with a mortgage, the bank's charge is to be treated as having priority over any equitable interest.

<i>Ropaigealach v Barclays Bank plc</i>

Ropaigealach v Barclays Bank plc [2000] QB 263 is an English land law case, concerning mortgage arrears and a rare mortgage over a family home which had a right to enter a home and sell it without a court order.

<i>Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Norgan</i>

Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Norgan [1996] 1 WLR 343 is an English land law case, concerning mortgage arrears.

Mortgages in English law are a method of raising capital through a loan contract. Typically with a bank, the lender/mortgagee gives money to the borrower/mortgagor, who uses their property/land/home as security that they will repay the debt and any relevant interest. If the mortgagor fails to repay, then the mortgaged property which has been used as security may be subject to various mortgagee remedies allowing them to retrieve the debt. Mortgages are an important part of English land law and property law. These concern, first, the common law, statutory and regulatory rules to protect the mortgagor at the time of concluding the mortgage agreement. Second, English law defines and restricts the process for taking possession of property in the event of default. Third, it places duties on mortgagees on the price it achieves when selling property.

<i>Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd</i>

Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[2013] UKSC 34, [2013] 2 AC 415 is a leading UK company law decision of the UK Supreme Court concerning the nature of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, resulting trusts and equitable proprietary remedies in the context of English family law.

<i>Thompson v Foy</i>

Thompson v Foy[2009] EWHC 1076 (Ch) is an English land law case concerning the right of a person with an overriding interest in a home and deals with a family arrangement for a house to be a gift transferring from a mother to a daughter and the trust between the two parties that the daughter would pay the mother her sum to buy out her share of the property.

<i>National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan</i>

National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan[1985] UKHL 2 is a judicial decision of the House of Lords relating to English contract law and the doctrine of undue influence. The case is most well known for the comments of Lord Scarman about the supposed requirement of "manifest disadvantage" to set aside a contract for undue influence.

Undue influence in English law is a field of contract law and property law whereby a transaction may be set aside if it was procured by the influence exerted by one person on another, such that the transaction cannot "fairly be treated the expression of [that person's] free will".

<i>CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt</i> Decision by the House of Lords

CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt[1993] UKHL 7 is a decision of the House of Lords relating to undue influence. The decision confirmed that a person did not need to suffer "manifest disadvantage" under a transaction in order to challenge it for actual undue influence.

<i>Bank of Montreal v Stuart</i>

Bank of Montreal v Stuart[1910] UKPC 53, [1911] AC 120 is a decision of the Privy Council relating to undue influence.

References

  1. ↑ HTML Version of Judgment at bailii.org at Question A
  2. ↑ HTML Version of Judgment at bailii.org at Question B
  3. ↑ HTML Version of Judgment at bailii.org at Question C
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 HTML Version of Judgment at bailii.org per quote extracted
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.