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.

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