AB v CD v EF (Beneficial Interest Application) [2025] EWFC 191 (B) (14 April 2025)

AB v CD v EF (Beneficial Interest Application) [2025] EWFC 191 (B) (14 April 2025)

The land was not gifted to the Second Respondent; it was placed in his name solely to avoid Stamp Duty. The Applicant and Respondent provided all funds and always treated the land as part of their joint property. There was a common intention constructive trust and, alternatively, a resulting trust in favour of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] EWFC 191 (B)
Parties
Applicant: AB; Respondent: CD; Second Respondent: EF
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Financial Remedy Proceedings (beneficial Interest Application) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
The land is held by the Second Respondent as legal owner but beneficially for the Applicant and Respondent jointly in equal shares.
Legal Topics
Beneficial Ownership, Constructive Trust, Resulting Trust, Presumption of Advancement, Illegality in Trust Creation, Stamp Duty Land Tax Avoidance
Family Law Equity and Trusts Property Law Beneficial Ownership Constructive Trust Resulting Trust Presumption of Advancement Illegality in Trust Creation +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Applicant

CD

Respondent

EF

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Financial Remedy Proceedings (beneficial Interest Application) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjacent land is beneficially owned by the Applicant and Respondent or solely by the Second Respondent
  2. 2 Whether a common intention constructive trust or resulting trust arises in favour of the Applicant and Respondent
  3. 3 Whether the transaction was a gift to the Second Respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The land was not gifted to the Second Respondent; it was placed in his name solely to avoid Stamp Duty. The Applicant and Respondent provided all funds and always treated the land as part of their joint property. There was a common intention constructive trust and, alternatively, a resulting trust in favour of the Applicant and Respondent jointly. The Second Respondent holds the legal title on trust for the Applicant and Respondent in equal shares. The illegality in the arrangement (Stamp Duty avoidance) does not bar the Applicant and Respondent's claim to beneficial ownership.

Court Disposition

The land is held by the Second Respondent as legal owner but beneficially for the Applicant and Respondent jointly in equal shares.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Second Respondent holds the land on trust for the Applicant and Respondent in equal shares.
  • The land forms part of the assets to be distributed between the Applicant and Respondent in the financial remedy proceedings.