Maunders v Evans

Regular payments towards household outgoings do not, without more, establish a beneficial interest in a property already owned by the other cohabitant. The claimant must prove an express agreement, or an agreement and common intention inferred from the circumstances, that the property is to be shared beneficially. An express agreement that no beneficial interest is to arise excludes any contrary inference from later payments. The court will also consider the financial and insolvency context when assessing whether the alleged agreement is likely. An appellate court will not ordinarily admit evidence available at trial, and will not grant permission for an appeal on a costs point that could make no practical difference and raises no important principle or other compelling reason.

Mrs Evans owned 68 Wallace Way, which she had bought in her sole name before Mr Maunders moved into the property. The parties lived together as man and wife but did not marry. Mr Maunders paid £330 monthly towards household expenses and claimed a beneficial interest, relying first on a resulting trust and alternatively on a constructive trust based on alleged common intention.

His Honour Judge Coltart found that the parties had expressly agreed that the property would remain Mrs Evans's property and that Mr Maunders's payments were for use and occupation and living expenses. Mr Maunders sought renewed permission to appeal against that decision and separate permission concerning an interlocutory costs order. The central issues were whether the payments could establish a beneficial interest despite the express agreement and whether either proposed appeal had a real prospect of success or raised an important principle or practice.

1. Substantive claim. The application for permission to appeal on the beneficial-interest issue was refused. Mrs Evans had acquired the property before the relationship, in her own name and with her own funds or borrowing for which she alone was responsible. Any later beneficial interest could therefore arise only from an express agreement or from an agreement or common intention inferred from the circumstances, applying the approach identified in Lloyds Bank Plc v Rosset [1991] All ER 1111.
2. The burden lay on Mr Maunders to establish that agreement or common intention. The trial judge preferred Mrs Evans's evidence and found an express agreement that the property would remain hers and that Mr Maunders would acquire no beneficial interest. That finding left no room for an inference arising from the payments. The alleged agreement to confer a joint or incrementally acquired interest was also inherently improbable in the context of Mr Maunders's impending and subsequent bankruptcy.
3. The resulting-trust claim could not succeed. The property had not been acquired in circumstances giving rise to a beneficial interest for Mr Maunders. Further, the payments were directed to household expenditure, including mortgage interest and endowment premiums; any resulting-trust claim would at most relate proportionately to the endowment policy, not the property.
4. The further evidence from Mr Martin was not admissible. It concerned matters which could have been put before the county court. The life policy on Mr Maunders's life did not support an inference of a beneficial interest: Mrs Evans had an independent insurable interest because his contributions to household outgoings would cease on his death.
5. Costs issue. Permission to appeal against the interlocutory costs order was also refused. Since Mr Maunders had lost the substantive case, the distinction between costs payable immediately and costs in the case made no practical difference. The proposed appeal raised no important point of principle or practice and there was no compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to intervene.

Order: application dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Renewed applications for permission to appeal against orders made by Lewes County Court were refused. The application was dismissed.
• Lewes County Court: His Honour Judge Coltart rejected the beneficial-interest claim after finding an express agreement that the property would remain Mrs Evans's property, and treated the interlocutory costs issue as academic in practical terms.