Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638

Facts

  • The case involved a cohabiting couple: the defendant purchased a house in his name (and his brother’s), excluding the claimant, Mrs. Grant, from the legal title.
  • The defendant told Mrs. Grant her name was omitted from the title to avoid adverse effects on her ongoing divorce proceedings.
  • The defendant paid the mortgage; Mrs. Grant contributed significantly to household expenses.
  • Upon separation, Mrs. Grant sought a beneficial interest in the property, claiming a constructive trust arose from their arrangement.
  • Mrs. Grant’s contributions to household expenses were deemed substantial, exceeding what would normally be expected and helping to meet the mortgage payments.

Issues

  1. Whether a constructive trust could arise where one party is excluded from the legal title but there is evidence of a common intention to share ownership.
  2. Whether a “specious excuse” for excluding a party from legal title is sufficient evidence of common intention to share a beneficial interest.
  3. Whether indirect financial contributions and other forms of detrimental reliance by the claimant could establish a beneficial interest in the property.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal found that a constructive trust could be established if two conditions were met: existence of a common intention to share ownership, and the claimant’s detrimental reliance on that intention.
  • The defendant’s excuse for omitting the claimant from the title was held to evidence a common intention.
  • Mrs. Grant’s substantial contributions to household expenses, which enabled the defendant to pay the mortgage, were considered detrimental reliance.
  • The court ruled that a specious excuse provided sufficient evidence of a shared understanding between the parties, supporting the claimant's beneficial interest.

Legal Principles

  • A constructive trust may arise without direct financial contribution if there is an objectively inferred common intention for shared ownership and detrimental reliance by the claimant.
  • A “specious excuse” for excluding a person from a legal title can evidence such common intention.
  • Detrimental reliance may include indirect contributions, such as substantial household expenses that help cover the mortgage obligations.
  • The test for constructive trust claims remains fact-sensitive, requiring demonstration of both elements: common intention and detriment.

Conclusion

Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638 confirmed that a constructive trust and beneficial interest in property may arise from a shared intention—demonstrated by even a specious excuse—joined with significant detrimental reliance, including indirect financial contributions, thereby expanding equitable protection for non-titled parties in cohabiting relationships.

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