## Facts

- Legal ownership of a barn conversion was held by Ms. Elvy.
- Mr. Aspden extensively renovated and transformed the barn from a derelict state into a habitable residence.
- Mr. Aspden claimed that his major improvements, despite not holding legal title, entitled him to a beneficial interest in the property.
- The court evaluated the scale of Mr. Aspden’s work, the resultant value increase, and the intentions of both parties at the time the work was carried out.
- The parties’ relationship and contributions, both financial and non-financial, were considered relevant to determining shares.

## Issues

1. Whether Mr. Aspden’s major improvements to the barn created a beneficial interest in the property.
2. What evidence is required to establish detriment and common intention for a constructive trust.
3. How the beneficial share should be determined where non-financial contributions are involved.

## Decision

- The court held that major, value-adding property improvements can give rise to a beneficial interest, even where the legal title is with another party.
- The nature and extent of the claimant’s improvements, value increase, and the parties' mutual intentions were determinative.
- The requirement of detrimental reliance was confirmed: Mr. Aspden’s conduct, based on an expectation of ownership, was essential to his claim.
- The court assessed the beneficial share by balancing the value increase from improvements with other financial contributions and the parties’ relationship.
- The ruling adopted and applied principles from previous authorities on constructive trusts and beneficial ownership.

## Legal Principles

- Beneficial ownership can be established separately from legal title through a constructive trust when there is a common intention and detrimental reliance.
- Detrimental reliance requires action by the claimant to their detriment, motivated by an understanding regarding ownership.
- Common intention constructive trusts can be inferred from conduct, not limited to express agreements.
- Valuation of beneficial shares considers both non-financial and financial contributions.
- The judgment referenced and aligned with the principles in Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107 and Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17.

## Conclusion

Aspden v Elvy confirms that significant non-financial contributions, such as substantial improvements, may establish a beneficial interest in property under a constructive trust, provided there is evidence of detrimental reliance and a common intention regarding ownership—even if this is inferred from conduct. The case clarifies the assessment required to determine beneficial shares and reinforces that equity may favour those who significantly improve a property without formal legal title.

Aspden v Elvy [2012] EWHC 1387 (Ch)