Wood v Lowe & Ors

An express declaration of trust in a transfer is ordinarily conclusive of the beneficial ownership stated, unless rectified, rescinded or varied by subsequent agreement. A later assertion of a resulting or constructive trust cannot displace the parties’ intention recorded at acquisition without sufficient evidence of a different arrangement. The court may determine beneficial ownership from the parties’ conduct, including how property was mortgaged, managed and represented to third parties. A person named as beneficial owner may nevertheless be treated as a nominee where the evidence shows that another person exercised ownership and control for his own benefit.

Christopher Wood, trustee in bankruptcy of Keith Lowe and administrator of Alan Ross’s estate, sought possession and sale of The Grange and Belvedere Hall. The Grange had been assigned beneficially to Emma Lowe-Marshall but registered in Mr Lowe’s name. Belvedere Hall was registered in the joint names of Mr and Mrs Lowe under a transfer declaring them tenants in common in equal shares. Emma later asserted beneficial ownership of both properties, relying on the 2002 assignment, alleged family arrangements, alleged use of her money, and a 2013 declaration of trust.

The central issues were whether Emma was the true beneficial owner, whether she held either property as Mr Lowe’s nominee, and whether the express declaration relating to Belvedere Hall could be displaced.

1. The Grange. The 2002 assignment placing the beneficial interest in Emma’s name was part of arrangements organised by Mr Lowe to reacquire family properties through intermediaries. The evidence showed that Mr Lowe dealt with The Grange as his own property, including by mortgaging it, arranging its redevelopment and selling the Coach House. Emma allowed him to exercise complete control and did not assert the responsibilities or conduct ordinarily associated with beneficial ownership. She was therefore his nominee, and any beneficial interest held in her name was held for his benefit.
2. Belvedere Hall. The transfer into Mr and Mrs Lowe’s names expressly declared that they held the property as tenants in common in equal shares. Applying Goodman v Gallant [1986] Fam 107, and the summary of that principle in Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432, the declaration was conclusive absent rectification or rescission. The alleged mistake was unsupported and no application for rectification had been made.
3. The court found that Emma was never intended to have a beneficial interest in Belvedere Hall. The 2013 declaration of trust was prepared late, after Mr Wood’s costs order, and was a device intended to defeat or delay his claims. The alleged resulting or constructive trust was also inconsistent with the parties’ intention at acquisition and with Emma’s own contemporaneous assertions that she had made a loan.
4. The court rejected reliance on the non-domestic purchase reasoning in Laskar v Laskar [2008] EWCA Civ 347. The possession application succeeded in relation to both properties. The IVA application was discontinued, and judgment was entered for Mr Wood, with the precise terms of the order to be considered later.