## Facts

- The case involved a dispute over shared ownership in property absent a written agreement.
- The claimant sought recognition of a legal interest in the property based on actions and contributions.
- The House of Lords delivered the leading judgment, clarifying when a person without formal title can assert ownership rights under an implied trust.

## Issues

1. Whether financial contributions toward the purchase price or mortgage of a property suffice to establish a common intention constructive trust.
2. Whether non-financial conduct, in the absence of monetary payments, is capable of demonstrating an agreement to share ownership.
3. What degree of specificity and clarity is required in purported agreements or conduct to allow the recognition of a legal interest.
4. Whether routine household contributions or indirect assistance are sufficient grounds for establishing a proprietary interest.

## Decision

- The court held that direct financial contributions to the purchase price or mortgage repayments were strong indicators of shared ownership and could justify an interest under a constructive trust.
- Without financial contributions, a claimant must provide compelling evidence of a specific agreement to share ownership, followed by conduct in reliance on that agreement.
- Vague promises, informal remarks, or general conduct unrelated to acquisition or improvement of the property were deemed insufficient.
- Routine household work or childcare did not, without more, constitute reliance sufficient to found a legal interest.
- The decision set out a strict framework for recognizing implied trusts absent formal documentation.

## Legal Principles

- A common intention constructive trust requires either direct financial contributions to purchase or clear evidence of an agreement to share ownership, coupled with reliance on such agreement.
- The quantum of a claimant’s equitable interest depends upon the overall assessment of the facts in each case.
- Conduct relied on must be both referable to and substantial in the context of acquiring or improving the property.
- Routine domestic activities or childrearing, without evidence of a clear common intention as to ownership, are insufficient to ground an interest.
- Later cases such as Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 have developed the law further, especially concerning unmarried couples, but Rosset remains central for implied trust frameworks.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords in Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset established a stringent test for common intention constructive trusts, prioritizing clear financial contributions or explicit agreements as evidence of shared ownership. Subsequent cases have adjusted certain aspects, but Rosset continues to provide an authoritative framework for determining property rights without formal documentation.

Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107