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.