Stack v Dowden - Joint JTs
but no declaration of BI
Post Stack
Le Foe - Mortgage payments were relevant
under Midland Bank v Cooke approach
Oxley v Hiscock - greater willingness to look at the
realities of the parties' dealings. Chadwick's cock up
Adekunle v Ritchie - Stack applies to mother/son
Fowler v Baron - JTs with no declaration
as to BI. RTs no longer appropriate
Kernott v Jones - cohabitees. decided what was 'just
and fair' given the whole course of dealings. Too broad,
no contact for 12yrs so what course of dealings
Hale's leading judgement
presume legal JT = equitable JT
person wanting otherwise must prove it
common intention may be
express, inferred or imputed
Neuberger warns against imputation
look at the whole
course of dealings
Rosset standards too high
critiques
Swaddling - CTs are Denning's mutant child, based on a
Diplock quote taken out of context. Dangerous that HoL
followed CA without proper explanation. Should consider
RTs more closely. Clarification needed
Hayton - Gissing conflates PE with CT
Nottingham LC - 'to presume a trust uneccessarily...
[allows] the LC to construe any man out of his estate'
Pre Stack
Pettitt - contributor's to the purchase
price will have a beneficial interest
Gissing - common intention +
detrimental reliance = CT
Midland Bank v Cooke - look at
the whole course of dealings
Lloyd's Bank v Rosset - propery in one person's
name - must be a common intention to share the BI -
trict approach, only direct contributions to decide BI
Springette v Defoe - in the absence of agreement,
arrangement or understand RT applies