Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886 (HL)

Facts

• The case concerned a married couple where the legal title to the family home was held solely in the husband's name.
• During their marriage, the wife was employed and contributed financially to household expenses, including furniture and their son's clothing.
• The husband obtained a mortgage and a loan from his workplace to finance the purchase of the house.
• The wife did not directly contribute to the mortgage or the purchase price of the property.
• Upon separation, the wife claimed a beneficial interest in the home despite not being on the legal title.
• The trial judge held the husband was entitled to possession, but the Court of Appeal reversed this decision.
• The husband appealed to the House of Lords.

Issues

1. Whether the wife's indirect contributions to household expenses were sufficient to establish a beneficial interest in the property under a constructive trust.
2. Whether legal ownership could be overridden by evidence of common intention or financial contributions short of payment towards the acquisition of the property.
3. What conditions must be satisfied for a constructive trust to be imposed in the context of matrimonial property.

Decision

• The House of Lords allowed the husband's appeal, restoring the trial judge's judgment.
• The court found that the wife's contributions to household expenses were insufficient to infer a beneficial interest in the property.
• It was held that a direct financial contribution to the acquisition of the property, such as mortgage payments or payment toward the purchase price, was required to establish a constructive trust.
• The absence of such direct contribution meant that the legal title remained solely with the husband.
• The decision clarified that indirect contributions, without a common intention or direct financial investment in the property, do not create a beneficial interest in equity.

Legal Principles

• A constructive trust may be imposed by the court where it would be inequitable for the legal owner to deny another person a beneficial interest in the property, requiring proof of a common intention and detrimental reliance.
• Direct financial contribution towards the purchase or mortgage of property is generally necessary to establish an equitable interest via a constructive trust.
• Contributions to general household expenses alone are insufficient for the implication of a constructive trust.
• The common intention constructive trust (CICT) framework requires clear evidence of both intention and reliance.
• Later cases clarify that the principles in Gissing v Gissing are primarily applicable to family home disputes and not automatically to commercial contexts.

Conclusion

Gissing v Gissing established that, for a constructive trust to arise in a family home context, there must be a direct financial contribution to the property's acquisition and a clear common intention to share beneficial ownership; mere household contributions are inadequate. Subsequent case law has refined but not fundamentally displaced these requirements, underscoring the importance of factual context in determining equitable interests.