Geary v Rankine [2012] EWCA Civ 555 [2012] 2 FLR 1409 (CA)

Facts

• The case concerned a dispute over ownership of a guest house property operated by Mr. Rankine but claimed in part by Ms. Geary.
• Mr. Rankine purchased the property before his relationship with Ms. Geary, originally intending it as a family home.
• Ms. Geary asserted that she had a share in the property due to her financial contributions and labor in the business.
• The dispute arose because Ms. Geary needed to prove that the original ownership intent had later shifted to include her through a joint agreement.
• Ms. Geary and Mr. Rankine collaborated in running the guest house business, but legal title and control remained exclusively with Mr. Rankine.
• There was no documented or explicit agreement regarding joint ownership of the property.

Issues

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence of a mutual agreement or common intention to share ownership of the property between Mr. Rankine and Ms. Geary.
2. Whether Ms. Geary’s business involvement and contributions amounted to an interest in the property by way of a common intention constructive trust.
3. Whether the absence of explicit discussion or agreement regarding property ownership precluded Ms. Geary’s claim.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal found insufficient evidence of any mutual agreement or common intention to share property ownership between the parties.
• Ms. Geary’s participation in the business and her contributions did not establish a proprietary interest in the property itself.
• The court highlighted that legal title, exclusive management of finances, and the absence of discussions about joint ownership weighed against Ms. Geary’s claim.
• The claim failed because business contributions and personal relationships were not, without more, sufficient to establish property rights.
• The judgment reinforced the significance of distinguishing between business arrangements and property interests.

Legal Principles

• Common intention constructive trusts require clear evidence of an agreement, express or inferred, to share property ownership.
• Contributions to a business operated on the property do not, by themselves, establish an interest in the property.
• Courts may infer intention from conduct, but must do so cautiously and based on the entirety of the evidence.
• The burden of proving a mutual agreement to share ownership remains on the claimant.
• Clear separation must be maintained between business partners’ interests and proprietary rights absent unequivocal mutual intentions.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal determined that Ms. Geary had not established any entitlement to a share in the property, as no mutual agreement to share ownership was demonstrated. The decision affirms that, in the context of common intention constructive trusts, clear and unambiguous evidence is required to confer a proprietary interest, especially where property is used for both business and residential purposes.