Oxley v Hiscock

Last updated

Oxley v Hiscock
NoWedding.jpg
Court Court of Appeal
Full case nameElayne M T Oxley v Alan G Hiscock
Decided6 May 2004
Citation(s)[2004] EWCA Civ 546
[2005] Fam 211
[2004] Fam Law 569
[2004] 2 FLR 669
[2004] 20 EG 1
[2004] 2 FCR 295
[2004] 3 WLR 715
[2004] 3 All ER 703
[2004] WTLR 709
(2003-04) 6 ITELR 1091
Transcript(s) BAILII
Case history
Prior action(s)appellant lost as to a 50% share in the property at first instance.
Subsequent action(s)none
Case opinions
Chadwick LJ
Case opinions
Decision byChadwick LJ
ConcurrenceMance LJ
Scott Baker LJ
Keywords
Cohabitants, family home, unequal contributions; joint tenancy; no deed of trust or co-ownership; legal constructions; constructive trust

Oxley v Hiscock [2004] EWCA 546 is a widely-reported English land law and family law case, concerning cohabitants' constructive trusts and their quantification in a home's equity value.

Contents

Facts

Mrs Elayne Oxley had been living, renting in public housing in Page Close, Bean, near Dartford and under the Housing Act 1985 before leaving had lived there long enough to have the statutory right to buy. She quit the tenancy losing this valuable right, which on her own the court found she likely in a few years would have exercised. Instead she formed a new home with Mr Allan Hiscock, a First Iraq War soldier who had been captured in September 1987 at 35 Dickens Close. She paid 28%, he paid 48% of £25,200, a mortgage the balance. They both contributed to household expenditure, improvements, maintenance and paying off the mortgage. The parties fell out. Oxley claimed 50% of the proceeds. Hiscock claimed 22% to her would be appropriate taking into account also improvements he had made.

At trial in the Bromley County Court, HHJ Hallon held:

"The description given by the claimant, whose evidence I accept, shows that this was a classic pooling of resources, even though there was no joint bank account. . . . All of the evidence which I have heard clearly shows that both were evincing an intention to share the benefit and the burden of [35 Dickens Close] jointly and equally.

[...]

...from the analysis of the law and the facts in this case, it is clear that the order which the claimant sought in her notice of application is the only one that can properly be made, namely to declare that the claimant is equally entitled, with the defendant, to a half share in the proceeds of sale of the Hartley property ..."

Judgment

Chadwick LJ held Oxley was entitled to a 40% share on the facts, not equal in light of the difference between their initial cash contributions. He said there were two questions (1) was there a constructive trust, and (2) how was it to be quantified. In particular, when there is no expression of what share each was (as in joint tenancy here) then it is up to the courts to decide.

69. It must now be accepted that (at least in this court and below) the answer is that each is entitled to that share which the court considers fair having regard to the whole course of dealing between them in relation to the property.’ Includes arrangements to meet outgoings like mortgage, council tax, utilities, repairs, insurance and housekeeping.

See also

Notes

    Related Research Articles

    In common law, a deed is any legal instrument in writing which passes, affirms or confirms an interest, right, or property and that is signed, attested, delivered, and in some jurisdictions, sealed. It is commonly associated with transferring (conveyancing) title to property. The deed has a greater presumption of validity and is less rebuttable than an instrument signed by the party to the deed. A deed can be unilateral or bilateral. Deeds include conveyances, commissions, licenses, patents, diplomas, and conditionally powers of attorney if executed as deeds. The deed is the modern descendant of the medieval charter, and delivery is thought to symbolically replace the ancient ceremony of livery of seisin.

    In property law, a concurrent estate or co-tenancy is any of various ways in which property is owned by more than one person at a time. If more than one person owns the same property, they are commonly referred to as co-owners. Legal terminology for co-owners of real estate is either co-tenants or joint tenants, with the latter phrase signifying a right of survivorship. Most common law jurisdictions recognize tenancies in common and joint tenancies.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Constructive trust</span>

    A constructive trust is an equitable remedy imposed by a court to benefit a party that has been wrongfully deprived of its rights due to either a person obtaining or holding a legal property right which they should not possess due to unjust enrichment or interference, or due to a breach of fiduciary duty, which is intercausative with unjust enrichment and/or property interference. It is a type of implied trust.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Tracing (law)</span>

    Tracing is a legal process, not a remedy, by which a claimant demonstrates what has happened to his/her property, identifies its proceeds and those persons who have handled or received them, and asks the court to award a proprietary remedy in respect of the property, or an asset substituted for the original property or its proceeds. Tracing allows transmission of legal claims from the original assets to either the proceeds of sale of the assets or new substituted assets.

    <i>Stack v Dowden</i>

    Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 is a leading English property law case from the House of Lords case concerning the division of interests in family property after the breakdown of a cohabitation relationship.

    <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>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."

    Grant v Edwards was an English Court of Appeal case on common intention constructive trusts.

    <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.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">English land law</span> 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.

    <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.

    Bristol & West Building Society v Henning [1985] EWCA Civ 6 is an English land law case that holds a person can consent to give up the right to an overriding interest in land, that will bind third parties, such as banks, that purchase a property. Although dealing with unregistered land, it is equally applicable in the case of registered land and now falls under the Land Registration Act 2002.

    In England and Wales, a section 21 notice, also known as a section 21 notice of possession or a section 21 eviction, is the notice which a landlord must give to their tenant to begin the process to take possession of a property let on an assured shorthold tenancy without providing a reason for wishing to take possession. The expiry of a section 21 notice does not bring a tenancy to its end. The tenancy would only be ended by a landlord obtaining an order for possession from a court, and then having that order executed by a County Court bailiff or High Court enforcement officer. Such an order for possession may not be made to take effect earlier than six months from the beginning of the first tenancy unless the tenancy is a demoted assured shorthold tenancy. If the court is satisfied that a landlord is entitled to possession, it must make an order for possession, for a date no later than 14 days after the making of the order unless exceptional hardship would be caused to the tenant in which case possession may be postponed to a date no later than six weeks after the making of the order. The court has no power to grant any adjournment or stay of execution from enforcement unless the tenant has a disability discrimination, public law or human rights defence, or the case is pending an appeal.

    Eves v Eves [1975] EWCA Civ 3 is an English land law case, concerning constructive trusts of the family home.

    Midland Bank plc v Cooke [1995] is an English land law case, concerning constructive trusts; and at first instance proven undue influence in law as to a secured business loan and later refinance.

    <i>Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd</i>

    Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd[2011] EWCA Civ 347 is an English trusts law case, concerning constructive trusts. Sinclair was partially overruled in July 2014 by the UK Supreme Court in FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC.

    <i>Re Drapers Conveyance</i>

    Re Draper’s Conveyance [1967] is an English land law case, concerning co-ownership of land.

    Relfo Ltd v Varsani [2014] EWCA Civ 360 is an English unjust enrichment law case, concerning to what extent enrichment of the defendant must be at the expense of the claimant.

    <i>Geary v Rankine</i>

    Geary v Rankine[2012] EWCA Civ 555 is an English land law case, concerning constructive trusts, and the establishment of a beneficial interest in an enterprise between a business owner and his or her lover and co-worker. It specifically concerned a case where the latter person received no formal wages and had entered no formal ownership nor partnership agreement nor directly or indirectly contributed in money to the purchase price.

    <i>FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC</i>

    FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC[2014] UKSC 45 is a landmark decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court which holds that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal. In so ruling, the Court partially overruled Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd in favour of The Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (UKPC), a ruling from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from New Zealand.