Oxley v Hiscock [2005] Fam 211

Facts

  • The case concerned a dispute over the beneficial ownership of a property registered solely in the man's name, with the woman claiming a share based on her contributions.
  • The parties were a cohabiting couple who had both contributed to the property and household expenses.
  • No express written agreement governed their respective beneficial interests in the property.
  • The woman made financial contributions towards the acquisition, maintenance, and running of the property over several years.
  • The man maintained legal ownership throughout, but the woman sought recognition of her beneficial interest following the termination of the relationship.

Issues

  1. Whether a constructive trust arose to give the claimant a beneficial interest in property held solely in the defendant’s name.
  2. How, if a beneficial interest existed, its size or proportional share should be determined in the absence of express agreement.
  3. To what extent contributions, both financial and non-financial, should influence the assessment of beneficial interest.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that a constructive trust could arise where there was a common intention that both parties would have a beneficial interest, even if not expressly agreed.
  • The existence of common intention could be established either through express agreement or inferred from conduct and financial or non-financial contributions.
  • In determining the size of the parties’ respective shares, the court would consider the entire course of dealings regarding the property, not relying solely on initial contributions.
  • The claimant’s beneficial share was quantified at 40% based on her long-term contributions and the fairness of the outcome.

Legal Principles

  • A two-stage test applies: first, establish whether there was a common intention for a shared beneficial interest; second, determine the size of each party’s share considering all dealings with the property.
  • Common intention may be express or inferred from the parties’ conduct, including financial contributions, home maintenance, and shared understanding.
  • The quantification of beneficial interests should consider both financial and non-financial contributions over the course of the relationship, rather than applying a strict resulting trust approach based only on financial input.
  • Sole legal ownership does not automatically preclude another party’s beneficial interest where contributions and intentions support a constructive trust.

Conclusion

Oxley v Hiscock [2005] Fam 211 established a flexible framework for determining beneficial interests in the context of constructive trusts in sole name property disputes among cohabitants, setting out that both financial and non-financial contributions, viewed in light of the entire course of dealings, should be considered to achieve a fair division.

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