Court Court of Appeal | ||
Citation(s) [1995] 4 All ER 562, (1995) 27 HLR 733 Judge(s) sitting Waite LJ
Chadwick LJ
Stuart-Smith LJ Similar Gissing v Gissing, Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset, Stack v Dowden, Jennings v Rice, Jones v Kernott | ||
Midland Bank plc v Cooke [1995] 4 All ER 562 is an English land law case, concerning constructive trusts. 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.
Contents
Facts
The Cookes paid for the house purchase price of £8500 by getting a mortgage loan from a bank, and Mr Cooke’s savings and a wedding gift from his parents of £1100. They then 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 was demanding repayment of £52,000 and sought possession. Mrs Cooke argued her signature was obtained by undue influence. (Mrs Cooke admitted at trial that they had never discussed any beneficial entitlement.)
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. He assessed her interest as 6% of the property, and Mrs Cooke appealed.
Judgment
The Court of Appeal held that the gift was made to the couple jointly. 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.
Chadwick LJ remarked accordingly.
Stuart-Smith LJ concurred.