Thomas v Fuller-Brown

Work or expenditure on another person’s property does not itself create a beneficial interest. The claimant must establish an express or implicit agreement, a shared intention inferred from the parties’ conduct, or the elements of proprietary estoppel. Extensive improvement work may constitute detriment, but it does not establish common intention where the surrounding circumstances support an ordinary domestic or licence arrangement. A party’s unilateral expectation of obtaining an interest is insufficient. An appellate court should respect trial findings based on witness credibility where the trial judge saw and heard the witnesses.

The appeal concerned consolidated proceedings about a house purchased and conveyed into the respondent’s sole name. The appellant, her cohabitee, had contributed no purchase money but had carried out substantial building and improvement work. He claimed a beneficial interest, alternatively an equitable lien, based on an express agreement, inferred common intention or proprietary estoppel.

The Chichester County Court rejected his counterclaim and ordered him to give possession. The first action, which also sought relief under the Domestic Violence & Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976, was not pursued. The central issue was whether the evidence established any proprietary interest despite the absence of a contribution to the purchase price.

1. Disposition. Lord Justice Slade delivered the leading judgment and dismissed the appeal. Sir Denys Buckley agreed. The dismissal was with costs, subject to legal aid taxation of the respondent’s costs.
2. Appellate restraint. The appellant principally challenged the trial judge’s assessment of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeal had only the judge’s notes, whereas the trial judge had seen and heard the parties under cross-examination. Alleged inconsistencies could have been assessed in their proper context at trial. There was no proper basis for disturbing the judge’s credibility assessments or primary findings.
3. Proprietary interest from expenditure. Applying the principles in Pettitt v Pettitt (1970) AC, 777, and the passage from Lord Upjohn’s speech at page 818, expenditure of money or labour on another’s property does not itself confer an interest. The relevant distinction is between improving another’s property and contributing to the acquisition of property. The authorities cited in that passage, including Ramsden v Dyson (1865) L.R. 1 H.L.129, Campion v Cotton (1810) 17 Ves.263 and Plimmer v Wellington Corpn. (1884) 9 App.Cas.699, supported that principle. Slade LJ added that an implicit promise, as well as an explicit promise, might suffice in an appropriate case.
4. Common intention. The Court applied the approach in Grant v. Edwards & Anr. (1986) 3 WLR, 114. Where there is no written agreement or direct contribution to the purchase price, the claimant must establish a common intention that both parties should have a beneficial interest, acted upon by conduct directly or indirectly referable to the purchase. The intention must be common. The appellant’s personal expectation that his work would lead to an interest, even if genuine, could not suffice.
5. The trial judge was entitled to find that the parties’ arrangement was a licence and domestic arrangement under which the appellant received board, lodging and pocket-money in return for his work. His conduct was capable of that rational explanation and did not compel an inference of shared proprietary intention. On the same findings, proprietary estoppel had no application. The appellant remained a licensee whose licence had been terminated, so the possession order stood.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [1987] EWCA Civ 10, the appeal was dismissed with costs.
• Chichester County Court: On 10 October 1986, the counterclaim was dismissed and the appellant was ordered to give possession of the house. Leave to appeal was granted on 20 October 1986.