Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Lloyds Bank v Rosset

[1991] 1 AC 107

Case summary last updated at 08/01/2020 14:57 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Lloyds Bank v Rosset

The house was purchased solely with funds from a trust fund and placed in X’s name. Unbeknown to D, his wife, X took out a mortgage on the house and when he defaulted the bank, P, claimed for repossession. D resisted on the basis that she had an overriding beneficial interest. HL held that D had no overriding interest and found in favour of the banks. 
 
Lord Bridge: He reiterated that the courts could not allocate property according to what was just, but rather a trust could arise in response to the common intention of the parties that both would have a beneficial share in the property. The court may infer the common intention of a beneficial interest from the conduct of the parties. “Direct contributions” to the purchase price of the mortgage will “readily justify the inference…but I doubt whether anything less will do”. This narrows the Gissing decision in terms of how the trust can be evidenced (direct financial contributions to the purchase price only). 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Land Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Land Law Notes

Land Law Notes >>