Farrar v Miller [2018] EWCA Civ 172

Facts

  • Mr. Farrar (appellant) and Mr. Miller (respondent) engaged in an informal commercial joint venture to develop a plot of land.
  • Mr. Farrar provided the land; Mr. Miller contributed skills and financial resources.
  • The venture was successful and produced significant profits.
  • Disagreements arose regarding the distribution of profits and ownership rights.
  • Mr. Farrar asserted entitlement to a larger profit share, arguing his land contribution outweighed Mr. Miller’s.
  • Mr. Miller argued for an equal division of profits, referencing the parties’ agreement to share risks and rewards.
  • There was no formal agreement detailing profit-sharing or ownership rights.

Issues

  1. Whether Mr. Farrar’s contribution of land entitled him to a greater share of profits than Mr. Miller.
  2. Whether the parties’ intentions, conduct, and contributions should determine beneficial entitlements in the absence of a formal agreement.
  3. Whether the principles of constructive and resulting trusts applied to the determination of beneficial interests in this context.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that the parties intended to share profits equally, regardless of the disparity in contributions.
  • Mr. Farrar’s claim for a larger share based on his land contribution was rejected.
  • The court relied on the parties' conduct and communications as indicative of shared intention.
  • The contributions of both Mr. Miller (skills and finance) and Mr. Farrar (land) were deemed essential to the project's success.
  • The court observed that the absence of agreement increases risk and potential for dispute.
  • Beneficial entitlements in joint ventures depend on the parties’ intentions, as inferred from conduct and contributions.
  • Constructive trusts may arise in commercial contexts to reflect equitable interests where legal title and expectations diverge.
  • Resulting trusts presume beneficial interest aligns with contributions unless contrary intention is established.
  • Courts may invoke principles of unjust enrichment to avoid unfair outcomes when contributions are not proportionately recognized.
  • The need for clear, formal documentation in joint ventures is highlighted to prevent disputes and litigation.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal determined that, in the absence of a formal agreement, beneficial entitlements in commercial joint ventures are governed by equity, intention, conduct, and contributions, resulting in an equal division of profits between the parties in this case.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal