Court: House of Lords
Date: 1970
Citation: [1970] UKHL 3
Area of Law: Land Law, Trusts, Constructive Trusts, Matrimonial Property Rights
Facts of Gissing v Gissing
Mr. and Mrs. Gissing married in 1935 when they were in their early twenties. In 1939, they had a son, and they initially lived in a flat in Tulse Hill. Throughout the marriage, Mrs. Gissing worked as a printer and, later, as a secretary until 1957. After the Second World War, Mr. Gissing secured a job at the same firm where his wife worked. This period marked a turning point, as they decided to purchase a property together.
In 1951, they bought a house at 28 Tubbenden Drive for £2,695. The house was bought in Mr. Gissing’s sole name, and £2,150 of the purchase price was financed through a mortgage in Mr. Gissing’s name. The remainder of the funds was raised through a loan from the printing company where Mrs. Gissing worked. Mrs. Gissing contributed £220 of her own money towards buying furniture and laying the lawn at the property. Mr. Gissing paid all the mortgage instalments, and the couple lived together in the house with their son.
In 1961, Mr. Gissing left his wife to live with another woman, but he reportedly told Mrs. Gissing that the house was hers. This led to a contentious divorce, granted in 1966 on the grounds of Mr. Gissing’s adultery. While Mrs. Gissing was awarded a maintenance order, it was later reduced to just 1 shilling per year. Subsequently, Mrs. Gissing brought an action to claim an equitable interest in the matrimonial home, contending that she was entitled to a share of the property due to her indirect contributions to the home.
Issues
The primary issue in this case was whether Mrs. Gissing had any equitable interest in the property or whether the title was solely vested in Mr. Gissing. Specifically, the court had to decide whether there was a common intention between the spouses to share the property and, if so, whether Mrs. Gissing’s indirect contributions (such as purchasing furniture and making household improvements) were sufficient to create a constructive trust in her favour.
House of Lords Decision in Gissing v Gissing
The House of Lords overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision, ruling that Mrs. Gissing had no equitable interest in the property. The Lords held that Mrs. Gissing’s contributions were not sufficient to create an inference that she had a beneficial interest in the house. Furthermore, they found that there was no common intention to share the equity of the house.
Lord Reid’s Opinion
Lord Reid was of the opinion that Mrs. Gissing’s contributions to the property were too indirect to create a beneficial interest. He suggested that if a couple has a joint bank account, with both parties contributing to the household bills, it could be difficult to ascertain whether one spouse made a direct contribution to the purchase of the property or merely an indirect one. He questioned the practicality of creating a constructive trust in cases where the spouses never explicitly discussed property ownership but simply contributed to the joint household.
“How can anyone tell whether she has made a direct or only an indirect contribution to paying for the house?”
Lord Diplock’s Opinion
Lord Diplock articulated that constructive, resulting, or implied trusts arise when a person’s conduct or statements lead another person to believe that they have a beneficial interest in a property. However, he emphasised that constructive trusts could not be inferred based solely on the joint household expenses, without clear evidence of an intention to share the equity in the property. He clarified that a common intention to share household expenses does not necessarily imply a common intention to share the capital interest in the property.
“For such conduct is no less consistent with a common intention to share the day-to-day expenses of the household, while each spouse retains a separate interest in capital assets acquired with their own moneys…”
Conclusion
Gissing v Gissing remains an important case in the study of land law and constructive trusts. The decision in the House of Lords, while restrictive in its approach, set out clear principles that have influenced subsequent case law. The case underscores the importance of clear intention and direct financial contribution when determining equitable interests in property, particularly in the context of matrimonial homes. Despite its limitations, the case provided essential guidance for understanding how courts assess contributions to family assets and the conditions under which constructive trusts may arise.