French v Barcham [2008] 1 WLR 1124

Facts

  • The case involved a dispute over beneficial ownership of a property following the breakdown of a relationship.
  • One party had made most of the mortgage payments, prompting questions about the impact of these payments on ownership shares.
  • Both parties had entered into the property with some form of understanding or agreement regarding ownership, but the clarity and details of this agreement were disputed.
  • Issues arose about how to account for both initial purchase contributions (such as deposits) and ongoing financial inputs, including those toward upkeep and maintenance.

Issues

  1. Whether mortgage payments alone entitle the payer to a greater beneficial interest in the property.
  2. How initial agreements, ongoing contributions, and shared intentions should be weighed in determining each party’s beneficial share.
  3. Whether, in the absence of express agreement, the court can infer or impute intentions regarding ownership shares based on conduct and fairness.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that making mortgage payments indicates an intention to acquire ownership but does not automatically fix the ownership percentage.
  • Ownership shares must be established by a comprehensive analysis of all relevant factors, including initial agreements, purpose of purchase, and subsequent financial conduct.
  • The court may infer intentions from evidence of contributions and conduct but will not create an agreement where none exists.
  • Resulting or constructive trusts may be found where contributions and intentions support such an outcome.
  • The judgment establishes the need to review all evidence rather than assign shares strictly according to mortgage payments.

Legal Principles

  • Mortgage payments are evidence of an intention to own but are not solely determinative of beneficial interest.
  • Courts must consider initial understandings, purpose behind the purchase, and subsequent financial conduct, including upkeep, in assessing ownership proportions.
  • Where explicit agreement is lacking, courts may infer intentions from the parties’ conduct and contributions, aiming for equitable outcomes.
  • Documentation and clear records of agreements and contributions significantly assist in resolving disputes about property ownership.

Conclusion

French v Barcham [2008] 1 WLR 1124 set out a structured method for determining beneficial interests in jointly owned property where mortgages are involved, requiring courts to analyze all contributions and shared intentions to achieve equitable property divisions in trust disputes.

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