Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Property Rights

Herring: Critical to look at how parties deal w/ money, property in absence of formal legal regulations
Despite change in household, men bread winner, women provide unpaid labor (children, manage home, undervalued, no prestige)
Pahl: Types of money management systems: (1) wife run finances, (2) allowance, (3) pooling, shared management, (4) separate
Aims of law of property: (1) promote certainty, (2) respect wishes of couples, (3) practical, easy to apply
Types of property regimes: (1) sole ownership (Married Womens Property Act 1882); (2) community property (on marriage
all property becomes jointly owner, (3) community of gains: each owns property before marriage separately, jointly after
marriage, (4) community of common property: items intended of joint use collectively owned, separate use separately owner
(problem of deciding intention), (5) purchase based: who bought what (arbitrary), (6) intention of parties
Criticisms of law: arbitrary, uncertain, unfair, emphasis placed on purchaser, often matter of chance; based on sexists norms
Robinson: proliferation of female headed households, devaluation of womens work, unpaid child rearing in home, womens
higher unemployment, pay disparity, sexual division of labor leads to feminization of poverty
Legal owners (registration or transfer of title), v equitable owners
Intro: w/out benefit of specific legislation, courts limited to declaring existing property rights (say who owns what); no redistribution;
flexibility only thru equity, b/c through A legal owner, court may state B beneficial/ equitable owner
Unmarried no power to redistribute Geddes v Stoeckert (no power to redistribute), except in Bar, Belize, T&T, Guy
Married no power to redistribute; no special law applicable to matrimonial property, no community property (separate ownership)
o Declaration of property + financial provision (alimony) old law (only wife, not if misconduct), new (w + h, no conduct)
Redistribution of property: Barbados Family Law Act, T&T Cohabitational Act allows court to legally redistribute
o Discretionary system: court determines, based on established principles (financial contributions, age, children); court do
more than declare, courts reorder assets, transfer property rights, require lump sum, periodic payments
o Community of property: St Lucia (Civil Code) model
Declaration of Beneficial Ownership: generally CL not look beyond legal title, but open to equity to determine beneficial owner
1. Presumed Resulting trust: if A, B purchase, B holds title, B holds for B, A b/c resulting trust; rebuttable presumption that people
do not give valuable property w/out consideration; if married, family, presumption not resulting trust, gift (Springette v Defoe: when
purchase money resulting trust, beneficial ownership enjoyed in proportion to contribution)
Presumption of advancement: presumption reversed where A, B married, father; prima facie evidence of gift;
rebuttable presumption A intend to transfer property to B (Changlee v Changlee, Lloyd presumption diminished in law)
Rebuttable on evidence that A intended to retain ownership, or some interest in property (Lynch v Lynch); presumption
not apply to de facto marriages; presumption doubted in Lloyd Lord Bridge of diminished legal significance
2. Common Intention Constructive trust: Lloyds Bank v Rosset Lord Bridge: constructive trust only created if (1) common
intention to share ownership, (2) party seeking to establish constructive trust had detrimental reliance
Establishing common intention: must be (1) agreement, arrangement, understanding b/w parties that property shared; (2) inferred
from conduct: must be direct contribution to purchase price or mortgage installments (Lord Bridge, Lloyd)
Absence of agreement, direct contribution, no CI; Bridge extremely doubtful that anything but direct financial contribution
Agreement: evidence of actual conversation b/w parties where parties agreed on shared ownership; not enough for mutual, uncommunicated belief, or merely to occupy; must agree at purchase, exceptionally at later time; Lord Steyn: trust law does not
allow property to be affected by telepathy Springette v Defoe (criticism: couples rarely conduct lives so rigid, formal)
Difficult to prove but Bridge: evidence introduced however imperfectly remembered, imprecise terms
Must relate to present, not future (Lord Bridge) (relaxing of strictness)
Common intention inferred if man gave excuse (Eves: where untruthful excuse woman too young to put name on deed); (Grant v
Edwards: putting name on titled would prejudice divorce proceedings) Pinnock; criticism: if lied, clearly no intent to create shared
ownership, however, detrimental reliance, men led women to believe, rely on belief property shared; cannot later back out)
Time: common intention formed at time of purchase, soon after (Lloyd); flexible though
Inferring common intension: Lloyd possible to infer CI, but only if direct financial contribution, purchase price, mortgage;
direct contribution (if woman paid all bills, allowed man to pay mortgage, no CI, no interest)
Midland Bank v Cooke: $1000 (lbs) from Mr Cs parent as wedding gift, seen as joint gift; thus, $500 for Mrs. C as downpayment; seen as her direct contribution, fits into Lloyd
Lefoe v Lefoe: on direct financial contribution, extremely doubtful (if anything but direct financial contribution), but not
impossible Harinarine v Aziz Car, common for one to work, other maintain home, contribute in other ways, pay bills to enable
h to make mortgage; Caribbean should strive to create indigenous jurisprudence (door open for other types of contributions)
Detrimental reliance: must also be acts that showed party relied on CI to detriment (Midland Bank v Dobson) conduct not
reasonably expected unless party has interest Eves v Eves: manual labor, breaking concrete, demolishing, rebuilding shed,
renovating house (not kind of work expected from normal female cohabitee); inferred therefore she acted this way b/c belief;
Lloyd: wife supervising builders, husband away not enough
o Gender stereotyping present

Midland Bank Waite LJ: When considering shares, count not bound by conversations, direct financial contribution; look to all
conduct to seek out intention, then if that proves inconclusive go to equality is equity

Proprietary estoppel: necessary to show (1) P believed she has, going to be given interest; (2) P act to detriment; (3) D aware of his
own interest in property; (4) D encouraged Ps belief emphasis on conscience, fariness
Criticisms of present law
o Requirement of oral agreement in Lloyd; unrealistic, ironic (difficult to discern what parties said in tenderest
exchanges must look at nature of relationship to see who telling truth, which is what Bridge did not want
o Requirement of spoken promise works against less assertive, articulate party
o Law reveals gender biases; in absence of CI, direct financial contribution needed; socio-economic roles; society devalues
womens work, unpaid; more likely men make direct contributions
Reform: give courts power to redistribute property of cohabitants
o Criticism: (1) treating unmarried couples alike devalue marriage; (2) people do not get married purposely b/c they do not
want to be treated as married couples; (3) difficulty in defining cohabitation
Right to occupy home: person has right to occupy house if interest in property under express trust, resulting trust, constructive
trust, or proprietary estoppel; may occupy under license, matrimonial home right
o Contractual licenses: contract under which owner permits licensee to occupy property; claimant needed to show
requirements of ordinary contract (difficult b/c b/w families usually no intention to create legal relations
o Matrimonial home right: conferred on dwelling home where; ceases on divorce, death unless court says otherwise
Right not to be evicted, except w/ leave of court; or right to occupy w/ leave of court
Tracy Robinson: welfare of children paramount important to family law; custodial spouse greater need for financial provision
UK Matrimonial Act 1973: S25(1) first consideration making property adjustment, financial provision orders on divorce is
welfare of children; under Barbados Family Law Act: court takes into account whether party in care, control of child
No redistribution of property of divorce (St. Kitts and Nevis Matrimonial Causes Act)
Old Law: declaration of beneficial ownership, limited property adjustment, alimony (St. Kitts & Nevis)
o Married Womens Property Act: OLT no redistribution on divorce; declare strict property rights at law
o Alimony: financial provision for w on divorce or nullity; court could order h to maintain w (alimony); orders: (1)
financial provision (alimony); (2) settlement of wifes property for benefit of husband, children (relevant factors:
husbands ability to pay, conduct of parties, wifes resources)
o General law to award 1/3 of husbands annual income (St. Christopher Nevis Matrimonial Causes Act)
o St K, N MCA: court may order husband to secure to wife such gross sum of money or annual sum of money for
term having regard to her fortune ability of husband conduct of parties
o Fault: principle: aggrieved, innocent wife entitled to be kept in same financial position during marriage; right to
maintenance linked to concept of divorce as relief for wrongdoing (desertion, adultery, cruelty)
o Limited property adjustment: settlement of wifes property for benefit of husband, children St K, N MCA: court
pronounces decree for divorce separation by reason of adultery, desertion, cruelty of wife, wife entitled to property
court may order settlement of property for benefit of third party, children of marriage
o Variation: after pronouncing divorce, court can enquire into existence of ante-nuptial, post-nuptial, to make orders for
benefit of children, parties of marriage
New Law: declaration of beneficial ownership, support orders (Antigua and Barbuda Divorce Act)
o Declaration of beneficial ownership: Antigua and Barbuda Divorce Act 1997 and Jamaica Matrimonial Causes Act
1989 give courts power to declare existing property rights, but w/ extended powers to grant financial orders
o Support orders: A&B DA 13(2): court may order one spouse to pay lump sum, periodic payment to support other spouse;
13(5) court takes into account condition, means, needs, circumstances of spouse, including (1) length of time cohabited,
(2) function performing by spouse during cohabitation, (3) any other agreement, arrangement relating to support of child
o S12(7) under for support should (1) recognize economic advantages, disadvantages to spouse arising from marriage,
breakdown; (b) apportion b/w spouses financial consequences of children, (c) relieve economic hardship arising from
breakdown of marriage, (d) in so far as possible promote economic self-sufficiency of spouse in reasonable time
o S13(6) eliminate conduct as factor; court may not take into account misconduct of spouse in relation to marriage
Redistribution of property (Trinidad and Tobago Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act MPPA)
Newer law: redistribution for married persons
o Law modeled after UK Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: gives HC wide discretion to make property adjustment,
financial provisions on breakdown of marriage; power to redistribute most economically valuable assets, make orders
pending divorce
o Types of orders
Income orders: (1) maintenance pending suit, (2) periodic payments on divorce, secured, unsecured

Capital orders: (1) lump sum payments on divorce, (2) transfer of property on divorce, (3) settlement of
property on divorce, (4) variation of settlement on divorce
Occupation order: give right to occupy matrimonial home for such period, on terms as court thinks fit
o Factors considered when making orders S27: (a) income, earning capacity, property, financial resources which each party
has, likely to have in foreseeable future; (b) financial needs, obligations, responsibilities; (c) standard of living enjoyed
by family; (d) age of parties, duration of marriage; (e) physical, mental disability; (f) contributions of each to welfare of
family; (g) any orders under S53; (h) value of either party to marriage of benefit that would place them in financial
position if marriage had not broken down
o Conduct: no longer material, but mentioned in h except in exceptional cause, parties fault no longer an issue
o Can take into account conduct before marriage
o Contribution to welfare of family White v White Lord Nicholls: in seeking to achieve fair outcome, no place for
discrimination b/w h, w, respective roles if in different spheres each contributed equally to family, then matters not
which earned money, built up assets; should be no bias in favor of money-earner, against home maker, child carer
o Preservation of status quo: place parties in position had marriage not broken; En amended this, adopted clean break
o Quantification of shares: Watchel v Watchel suggests 1/3 starting point; White v White
Note: T&T Cohabitational Relationship Act 1998 gives persons in cohabitational relationship right to make application for
property adjustment order

New Law: Comprehensive reform for married, unmarried (Barbados, Guyana, Belize)
Barbados Family Law Act: court can make orders to declare property, alter, redistribute rights, interests of parties; applies to
married person, persons in unions other than marriages S39 relationship established when man, woman, who not married to each
other, cohabited continuously for 5 yrs, cohabited w/in yr immediately preceding institution of proceeding
o Orders in Barbados can be made during relationship, not just when it broken up
Guyana Married Persons Act 1990: allows courts to alter property interests of married persons, parties in other unions (where
parties living together for 5 yrs, claimant not working 1/3 share, where working share), however judge for good, sufficient
reasons can vary award; if less than 5 yrs, judge may consider contributions to welfare of family (looking after home, family)
Belize Supreme Court of Judicature Act: SC has power to both declare, alter property rights of married couple where just,
equitable; property must be acquired during marriage; court can also declare, alter property rights for persons in common law
unions (man, woman not legally married to each other, to any other person cohabit continuously as h, w for 5 yrs)
Barbados: declaration of property: courts apply ordinary rules of law, equity; no discretion (similar to MWPA)
o Alteration: S57 court may make order as thinks fit altering interest in property; also consequential orders (sale, partition,
orders as to possession); orders not binding on third parties; must be satisfied that it just, equitable to make order
o Take into account: financial contribution direct, indirect to property; including improvements to property, and
contribution made as homemaker
o Other factors: S53(2) age, state of health of parties; income, property, financial resources of parties; whether either party
has care, control of child under 18; financial need, obligations of parties; responsibilities to support other persons;
eligibility of pension, allowance, etc; reasonable standard of living; whether maintenance enable party to enter education,
training, to establish business (geared at self-sufficiency); duration of marriage, extent to which it affected earning
capacity; need to protect women who wishes to contribute only as wife, mother; other factors justice requires
Jamaica Family Property (Rights of Spouses) Act 2004 (Bill)
Like Barbados, Jamaica Family Law Act creates one regime for married, unmarried in certain cohabiting unions; but unlike
Barbados where wide discretion, Jamaica provides for modified community of property regime w/ fixed shares in family home
Spouse: S2(1) spouse includes single woman cohabiting w/ single man, vice versa for 5 yrs immediately preceding proceedings
Equal share in family home: each party entitled to one half share in family home on breakdown even if title in one name; court
can readjust if reasonable, just taking in relevant factors (if home inherited by one spouse, gift to one, was already owned by one
spouse at time of marriage, that marriage is short)
Property division: personalty divided taking into account contributions, duration of marriage, that there is no family home,
agreement w/ respect to ownership, other circumstances
Property alteration: court can alter, transfer rights in property
Private ordering: parties in contemplation of marriage, cohabitation can make agreement w/ respect to ownership, division of
property for purpose of contracting out of act, ownership of property; must obtain independent legal advice; if provisions of act
not complied w/, if unjust, unreasonable, court can make agreement unenforceable
Creditors: each spouse has protected interest in family home; rights conferred on spouse by order made under act subject to
rights of mortgage, security, charge, encumbrance affecting property if registered before order under act made
Jamaica Matrimonial Property Reform: no fault scheme for divorce, but no similar legislation allowing redistribution on
divorce still clings to old concept of marriage; left CL untouched w/ respect to matrimonial property
Other points

En adopted clean break principle, promote self-sufficiency, no fault (business view of marriages contractual unions)
Provide future needs of spouses, economic disadvantages of marriage: should law compensate partner who suffers as result of
marriage; b/c they have primary responsibility for care of children, household (policy: would discourage stay at home mothers)
View of marriage as joint, equal partnership (assume parties intend to share equally)
Recognition of contributions of parties (paid, non-paid contributions, care for family, children, domestic services)

Types of regimes:
Community property: St Lucia Civil Code establishes legal community w/ respect to marriages, in absence of stipulation to
contrary; legal community arises when (1) declaration it shall exists in marriage contract, (2) where no mention of it, (3) when not
expressly, impliedly excluded, (4) when no marriage contract
o Once married, property divided in separate property, community property; spouse together administer community prop
o Community property everything not separate property
o Separate property is: property owned at marriage; income, earnings; investments in each spouses name; insurance
policies; property acquired w/ separate funds; revenue derived from separate property
o Note: mechanism for dealing w/ property during marriage, not when marriage broken down
Fixed share starting point: (proposed in Australia) presumptive starting point for equal division; court has limited discretion to
interfere w/ presumption
Wide discretion: position in all territories modeled after UK MCA, and Barbados
Prenuptial, postnuptial agreements: generally not recognized by CL; growing movement towards enforceability (chaning
nature of marriage more seen as contract, partnership of equals)
Role of fault: diminishing in importance; but still present
Case: Springette v Defoe CA
Facts: A, R lived together as h, w in As flat; moved to house, joint secure tenants; received offer of sale of house; parties bought
property together; A contributed substantially more; agreed to marry, each contribute to mortgage; no discussion about
beneficial interest; registered in joint names, no declaration of trust; broke up; R left property; proceedings to determine
beneficial owner; A contended she entitled to 75% to reflect her contribution of purchase price; R argued equal share; trial:
equal shares, had common intention, but un-communicated to share 50 per cent; appellant appealed
Held: Allowing appeal Dillon J: (1) common intention to confer beneficial interest means shared intention communicated b/w
them; cannot mean subjective intention of each, but never communicated; (2) Since no discussion b/w parties about
respective beneficial interests no common intention; presumption of resulting trust not displaced; accordingly parties
beneficially entitled in proportions 75%, 25%
Case: Gissing v Gissing (HOL)
Facts: Parties married for long time, matrimonial home purchased, conveyed into sole name of A; A paid mortgage; no express
agreement to beneficial interest; R made no direct financial contribution, provided some furniture, equipment for house,
improved lawn, nominal; R bought clothes for her, son; A gave R household allowance; paid for vacation, expenses, separate
bank accounts, separate financing, no joint account; marriage broke down
Held: No common intension; Lord Reid: (i) where (a) both spouses contributed towards purchase of matrimonial home conveyed
into name of one, (b) no agreement to share beneficial interest (c) spouse in whose name matrimonial home purchased
evinced no intention that contributing spouse should have beneficial interest therein, question whether contributing spouse
entitled to beneficial interest matter dependent on law of trust (ii) no distinction b/w direct, indirect contributions (nebulous,
really matter of chance); rarely discussion b/w h, w about financial matters
Diplock: no common intension from evidence, separate accounts, no joint savings, account; no conversation
(remedy sought thru CL, not statutory provisions)
Case: Pettitt v Pettitt
Facts: A, + h, lived in house she inherited; h carried out improvements; redecorating; house sold, acquired another; A left h alleging
cruelty, sought divorce; h left house, sued for beneficial interest for improvements made to present house; order granted that
A pay, As appeal dismissed, appealed to HOL
Held: Reid: appeal allowed, contributor to purchase price acquires beneficial interest, contributor to improvements after purchase
acquires no interest, unless common intension; depends too on nature of improvements; two approach (1) what would parties
agree to if set mind to it; (2) community, family property held jointly, if purchased as family home, then joint property; not
latter, Parliament must decide on community property issue; but court may ask what spouses, or RM, in position would
agreed to if directed mind to question of ownership
o S17 of Married Womans Property Act 1882 does not give court power to redistribute property rights, only procedural
o Presumption of advancement much diminished in law
o Agreement b/w h, w poses problem of intention to create legal relations, generally thought h, w agreements not legally
binding (Balfour v Balfour); however, if h agrees to pay w, cannot be sued if he does not, but if h pays wife, pay
installments, then question if rights accrue entirely different; cannot be that no rights follow

Quoted Denning, cannot gain rights to do-it-yourself jobs, things necessarily incidental to living together, fixing,
cleaning, things for common enjoyment of both; improvements also temporary, diminishes w/ time, but right in home
permanent accrues w/ time, cannot be fair to give permanent interest for temporary improvements

Case: Harrinarine v Aziz


Facts: D owned house; wife died, had nine children; D moved in as mistress, lived together substantial period; had additional
children together; acquired new house, paid for house jointly (P contributed $800 by selling three cows), contributed by
paying for additions to house, taking care of children, cooking for him, working additional job; house in Ds sole name,
however P asked; D told her in both, P asked about will, D said not to worry; D lied; made will, gave house to two children
Held: Presumed resulting trust b/c both contributed financially; P has interest of ; made substantial financial contributions;
contributed significantly in indirect ways; not mistress as D contended, but common law wife; law in our time long enjoyed
acquiescence, stagnation; now time for growth, creativity; not better starting point that to recognize role of common law wife
in our society; common law unions institutional in Caribbean, we should develop our own jurisprudence patterned off our
societies, culture; radical departure from authorities, but prepared to recognize that woman who contributes to maintenance of
house so man can pay entitled to beneficial ownership; justice, commonsense; prepared to accept indirect financial
contributions
Lord Bridge in Rosset (note this is before Rosset): said extremely doubtful not impossible
Case: Lloyds Bank v Rosset
Facts: Ds, h w, bought derelict house for family, two children; husband paid purchase price from Swiss family trust; bank insisted
house in his sole name; w carried daily work, renovations, urged builders; contributed nothing to purchase price, renovations;
h overdraft account for renovations; no knowledge of w; bank repossessed
Held: W entitled to beneficial share in property, however, her interest not overriding b/c not in possession on critical date; thus her
interest not override banks charge on house (Land Registry Act)
Lord Bridge: it is at least extremely doubtful whether anything less than direct contributions to purchase
price by non-owning partner will be sufficient; cannot infer common intention to own, from CI to occupy as matrimonial
home, or carry out renovations together; must be CI to confer beneficial interest as owner, evidenced by express
conversation; must be express discussions b/n partners, however imperfectly remembered, imprecise terms may have been;
then must show detrimental reliance, altered position in belief of common intention entitled to constructive trust,
promissory estoppel; absence of conversation, direct financial contribution to purchase price, mortgage necessary; doubtful if
anything other than direct contribution suffices
Case: Eves v Eves
Facts: P, married, age 19, began to live w/ D, married; both intended to marry once divorced; first resided in house belonging to D,
P had no beneficial interest; daughter was born; purchased house; D said house for them, children, if she 21 he would put
house in joint name, as it was joint home, but b/c she under 21, had to be put in his name alone; later D admitted simply
excuse, he intended it in his name alone; house purchased entirely by D; dirty, dilapidated; P did great deal of work; stripped
wallpaper, painted woodwork, cleaned house; painted brickwork; using 14 lbs sledgehammer, broke concrete; prepared front
garden; demolished shed, put up new one; D left her to live w/ another woman
Held
Husband held house on trust; common intention, detrimental reliance Lord Denning MR: excuse provided intention, acted on
belief; Browne LJ and Brightman J: inferred arrangement b/w parties, P was to acquire beneficial interest in return for labor,
work carried out by P in pursuance of agreement; work much more than that of wife, showed she acted on, relied on belief;
Ds conduct lead P to believe she would acquire beneficial interest; D recognized by making excuse that it fair she should
received interest; shared proportionate according to contribution; Ps share one quarter; detrimental reliance test: was conduct
unreasonable for person, other than one who believed she had beneficial interest; should be judged by what he told her not
secret intent; she acted on belief
Case: Grant v Edwards and Another
Facts: P separated from husband, lived w/ first D in house first D purchased; house conveyed into joint names of first D, and his
brother; brother had no beneficial interest; first D told P name not included b/c would prejudice divorce proceedings for her;
P paid deposit, mortgage installments; P made substantial contributions to general household expenses; broke up, P claimed
beneficial interest, judge dismissed claim
Held: Allowing appeal, Norse J: (1) where couple chose to set up home together, house purchased in one name, equity infers trust
if CI that both have beneficial interest, non-proprietary owner acted to detriment; had to be conduct; (2) excuse given by first
D to P clear inference of common intention that P have interest in house; contribution to general household expenses in
excess of what expected as normal contribution, without substantial contribution first D not able to pay mortgage; indirect
payments evidence of detrimental reliance; not expected that she so conduct herself unless she believed she had interest
Case: Pinnock v Pinnock (how to allocate beneficial share)
Facts: W, appellant, contended excuse given by husband that two lots sold off before they acquired property; lots not yet
transferred; husband took title alone, transfer property later into both names; both listed on insurance; (she had property
before marriage, transferred in both names after marriage); he went to Germany to study; she paid bills; R came back as

mechanical engineer; bought land, held in his name alone; opened four stores, supermarket on land; he paid loan, she
household expenses; having discovered name on title only his, she inquired; he gave excuse that two acres sold off, not yet
been transferred; had to take transfer in his name alone, would later transfer in both names; R also told her she could not sign
for loan b/c no member of credit union; she claim contributed money to building; paid bills; assisted in planting corn; she in
charge of supermarket; got joint loan to stock it; marriage broke down due to domestic violence; claim thru Married Womens
Property Act
Held: Rattray P: common intention exist, appeal allowed in favor of W; Harrison JA: CI inferred on deception of legal owner,
rationale that he not effect deception except if necessary to conceal common intention (but CI was not to create beneficial
interest); was common intention, otherwise excuse not necessary; tenant agreement mentions both names as landlords,
insurance had both names; detrimental reliance: probably contributed $20,000; helped in store; planted cane; court then look
to contributions to determine percentage of As interest
o Extent of beneficial interest, prima facie, that which parties intended Gissing v Gissing
o Placing of balance of insurance money after fire in joint account meant equal distribution Grant v Edwards
o Lord Reid: does not necessarily mean 50/50; phrase equity is equality mis-used; only where such inference cannot be
drawn from circumstances does rule of law, maxim equity is equality then apply Gissing
o Lord Pearson: contributions not limited to direct payments; if arrangement one pays house expense, other mortgage
o Consider whole course of dealing b/w parties, not bound by contributions Midland Bank v Cooke
Case: Geddes v Stoeckert PC
Facts: Appellant, respondent together, but never married for considerable period of time; held separate account; respondent gave
frequent gifts; advice for business, stocks, assisted A in investments; very discreet about when he wanted to give her gifts;
placed her in will; but later altered when respondent married someone else; had possession loaded in flatbed truck
Held: No common intention; appellant claimed statements that he was going to make her richest corpse in Jamaica; he would put
her in charge of resources if JLP lost 1980 elections; he will make substantial provisions for her; statements not evidence of
common intention; statements must relate to present tense, confer beneficial ownership now, not in future; statements
ambiguous, not relate to occupation, but actual ownership
Case: Otway v Gibbs PC
Facts: Dr. Otway, Gene Gibbs lived together as m, w for16 yrs; both worked; maintained joint account;
paid salary into account,
paid expenses; bought house w/ joint money; Gibbs paid mortgage out of
income; house in joint names; lived there together;
kept other properties, O got retirement from
government; G arranged for it to go into separate account; insurance also paid
into sole account;
separated briefly; closed joint account, each opened separate account; resumed living together; kept
separate
account; O died; G claimed half share in Os estate; daughter administrator; three month
before death, O told G, put one
house in daughters name; other in Gs daughters name, live on
money in bank; she argued this clear intention she should
have half of monies in bank; court of first
instance said inference cannot be discerned from words; meant only so long as they were together; did
not evince intention to create beneficial interest in money; CA reversed; attention paid to words shared
money we have; focused on statement of G we shared everything, debt, assets, information,
everything
Held: Words not meant to have immediate dispositive effect; clearly O speaking in future tense; conferred house at Grand Anse on
daughter, house at Belmont on Natty; Gs daughter, but they were living not at Belmont; could not be interpreted as present
gift; both G, O scrupulous in distinguishing their property; money was their money in that they lived on it, but in equity, in
law money his alone