Pettitt v Pettitt

Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 provides a summary procedure for determining and enforcing existing property rights between spouses. It does not authorise a court to create, transfer or vary proprietary interests according to what appears fair after a marriage has broken down.

Ordinary domestic work or improvements performed by one spouse upon property beneficially owned by the other do not, without an actual agreement or another recognised equitable basis, confer a beneficial interest or monetary claim. Matrimonial property remains governed by ordinary principles of law and equity. Marriage, common use and subsequent separation do not themselves convert separately owned property into jointly owned “family assets”.

The appellant wife owned a house which she had inherited. After its sale she acquired a second house in her sole name. While the spouses lived there, the respondent husband carried out redecoration, gardening and other improvements which he claimed had enhanced its value.

After the marriage broke down, the husband applied under section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 for a declaration that he had a beneficial interest in the proceeds of sale. The Registrar awarded him £300. The Court of Appeal reluctantly dismissed the wife's appeal because it considered itself bound by Appleton v Appleton [1965] 1 W.L.R. 25.

The central questions were whether section 17 permitted the court to adjust existing property rights according to fairness, and whether work performed by one spouse upon the other's property could create a beneficial interest without an agreement.

Appeal allowed unanimously. The husband's beneficial-interest award could not stand.

1. Section 17 was procedural. Lords Reid, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Hodson, Upjohn and Diplock agreed that section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 provided a summary forum for resolving questions of title or possession. It did not confer jurisdiction to create, transfer or vary proprietary rights according to what appeared fair. The discretion extended to remedies, enforcement and possession, but title had to be determined under ordinary legal and equitable principles.
2. Property rights were not altered by marital breakdown. Lord Reid, Lord Morris, Lord Upjohn and Lord Diplock reasoned that rights arose from the relevant acquisition, agreement or transaction. Later separation did not change them. Subsequent conduct could evidence the parties' original intention or establish a later agreement, but the court could not invent an agreement by asking what the spouses would have decided had they anticipated separation.
3. The domestic improvements created no interest. All five Law Lords agreed that leisure-time redecoration, gardening and similar “do-it-yourself” work ordinarily undertaken for family enjoyment did not alter the ownership of the matrimonial home. Lords Morris, Hodson and Upjohn further concluded that, without an actual agreement, express or clearly implied from evidence, the improving spouse acquired neither a proprietary interest nor a personal claim. Lord Upjohn also recognised established equitable grounds such as estoppel.
4. There were differing wider approaches. Lord Reid considered that capital or non-recurring improvements, made with the owner's assent in circumstances supporting an inferred entitlement, might create a right without proof of an actual agreement. Lord Diplock similarly considered that a common intention could sometimes be imputed to reasonable spouses, and regarded Jansen v Jansen [1965] P. 478 as such a case. Those views did not command the majority on the broader improvements question.
5. No independent doctrine of family assets applied. Lords Reid, Morris, Hodson and Upjohn rejected the proposition that property intended for family use thereby became jointly owned or subject to discretionary redistribution. Such a system required legislation. Lord Diplock used “family assets” descriptively but agreed that section 17 did not permit discretionary reallocation. Appleton v Appleton [1965] 1 W.L.R. 25 was overruled; Button v Button [1968] 1 All E.R. 1064 was followed.

• House of Lords: In Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777, the House unanimously allowed the wife's appeal and displaced the Court of Appeal's reliance on Appleton v Appleton [1965] 1 W.L.R. 25.
• Court of Appeal: Reluctantly dismissed the wife's appeal, holding itself bound by Appleton v Appleton. It granted leave to appeal. The citation of this stage is not stated in the judgment.
• Registrar: Declared that the husband had a beneficial interest of £300 in the proceeds of sale and ordered the wife to pay that sum.