Negus v Gordon Charles Bahouse & Anor

For a constructive trust or proprietary estoppel claim, the claimant must establish a common intention, agreement, arrangement or understanding that the property would be shared beneficially, together with substantial detriment causally connected to the assurance relied upon. General assurances of future security may be relevant to an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, even where they do not create a proprietary interest.

Maintenance under the 1975 Act is assessed in the context of the claimant’s established lifestyle and circumstances. It means reasonable provision for a decent and comfortable life according to that person’s station, rather than subsistence alone or everything reasonably desirable for general welfare. The court may order a transfer of property and a capital sum where the estate has failed to make reasonable financial provision.

Cyd Negus had cohabited with Henry Bahouse for about eight years before his death. She had given up work and maintained the household. Henry’s will left the residue of his estate to his son, Gordon Bahouse, while Ms Negus received benefits under a pension policy and a half share in a Spanish property.

Following Henry’s death, Ms Negus claimed a beneficial interest in Flat 8, which had been acquired in Henry’s name, and alternatively sought reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The executors sought possession of Flat 8. The central issues were whether Ms Negus had established a proprietary interest and whether the will made reasonable provision for her maintenance.

1. Beneficial interest. The claim under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 failed. The claimant bore the burden of showing an agreement, arrangement or understanding, arising at acquisition or exceptionally later, that Flat 8 was to be shared beneficially. An assurance, promise or representation could be relevant, but the evidence had to establish the necessary common intention. Any detriment also had to be substantial and causally connected to the assurance.
2. The assurances that Ms Negus would have a roof over her head, together with the circumstances of cohabitation and her decision to leave employment, were insufficient to establish a specific arrangement giving her a beneficial interest in either Greenways or Flat 8. The court therefore made no declaration of beneficial ownership.
3. 1975 Act claim. Ms Negus was an eligible cohabitee. The will had failed to make reasonable financial provision for her maintenance. Maintenance was the touchstone, but had to be assessed against the lifestyle established during the relationship. It did not mean mere subsistence, but neither did it extend to everything reasonably desirable for her general welfare.
4. The court considered her age, the length of the cohabitation, the assurances given by Henry, her loss of employment, her resources, her uncertain earning capacity, the size of the estate and Gordon’s competing position. Her existing assets and income left a substantial shortfall against her reasonable needs. It was unjust to assume that she could readily return to work after many years’ absence.
5. The appropriate order was the transfer of Flat 8 to Ms Negus free of mortgage, or payment of a sum sufficient to discharge the mortgage, together with a capital sum of £240,000, including £40,000 for necessary refurbishment. The possession claim was dismissed.