Ong v Ping [2017] EWCA Civ 2069

Facts

• The dispute concerned the beneficial ownership of a London property purchased in 2007 for £1.2 million, with legal title registered solely in the name of Mr. Ping.
• Ms. Ong, the appellant and Mr. Ping's sister-in-law, contributed £200,000 towards the purchase price and made subsequent mortgage payments.
• Ms. Ong claimed a 16.67% beneficial interest in the property, asserting her contributions gave rise to a resulting trust.
• Mr. Ping contended that the contributions were gifts and he was solely entitled to the property, citing the absence of an express declaration of trust.
• The trial judge rejected Ms. Ong's claim, finding no proof of a common intention to share the beneficial interest and highlighting the lack of supporting documentary evidence.
• Ms. Ong appealed, arguing that the trial judge had misapplied the legal principles relating to resulting and constructive trusts.

Issues

1. Whether Ms. Ong's financial contributions constituted a resulting trust that entitled her to a beneficial interest in the property.
2. Whether the absence of an express declaration of trust prevented Ms. Ong from establishing a beneficial interest through resulting or constructive trust.
3. What evidentiary standards must be satisfied to rebut the presumption of sole ownership where legal title is in one party’s name.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision, finding insufficient evidence to establish a resulting or constructive trust.
• The court found Ms. Ong's financial contributions alone were insufficient to create a beneficial interest in the absence of clear evidence of a common intention to share ownership.
• The absence of an express declaration of trust and lack of contemporaneous documentary evidence significantly undermined Ms. Ong’s claim.
• The court reaffirmed the presumption of sole ownership when the legal title is held by one party, requiring cogent evidence to rebut it.

Legal Principles

• A declaration of trust over land must generally comply with section 53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925, requiring written evidence.
• Resulting trusts may arise from direct contributions to the purchase price, but such contributions must be supported by clear evidence of an intention to create a beneficial interest.
• Constructive trusts require proof of a common intention, often inferred from conduct, for joint ownership of beneficial interests.
• Financial contributions, without explicit or implicit evidence of shared ownership intention, are not determinative in claims of beneficial interest.
• The evidentiary approach in such cases aligns with the principles established in Stack v Dowden [2007] and Jones v Kernott [2011].

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in Ong v Ping [2017] EWCA Civ 2069 reaffirmed that financial contributions alone do not establish a beneficial interest in property without clear evidence of a shared intention to do so, emphasizing the essential role of formal declarations and documentary evidence in rebutting the presumption of sole ownership.