Monica Margaret Ramji v Graham John Harvey & Ors

Marriage does not, without more, confer a beneficial interest in property owned by the other spouse. A common intention constructive trust requires a common intention to share beneficially and detrimental reliance on that intention.

A transaction may be presumed to result from undue influence where the claimant proves a relationship of trust and confidence and a transaction calling for explanation. The evidential burden then shifts to the alleged influencer to provide a satisfactory explanation.

For a substantial lifetime gift, capacity depends on whether the donor had the requisite ability to understand the transaction. The required degree of understanding is high where the gift substantially disposes of the donor’s assets.

The claimant brought proceedings under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 concerning beneficial interests in two properties formerly associated with her late husband.

She claimed a 50% beneficial interest in 2 Montacute Road, which had been purchased by her husband before their marriage, relying on the marriage, contributions to the household and business, and a common intention constructive trust.

In relation to 51 Ravensbourne Park Crescent, certain defendants challenged a 2016 transfer which added the claimant’s granddaughter as a joint tenant. They alleged that the deceased’s signature was not genuine or properly witnessed, and relied on undue influence, lack of capacity, and want of knowledge and approval.

The court determined the nature and extent of the parties’ beneficial interests at the deceased’s death.

1. 2 Montacute Road. The claimant’s marriage did not make her an equitable owner. The property had been bought by the deceased before the parties met. The evidence did not establish an express or inferred common intention to share its beneficial ownership, and the claimant had not shown detrimental reliance. Contributions to the family business, payment of household expenses from business profits, use of a joint bank account and references to the property as the couple’s home were insufficient.
2. The court applied the common intention constructive trust principles summarised in Dobson v Griffey, following Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott. The claim therefore failed, and the deceased remained sole legal and beneficial owner of 2 Montacute Road.
3. 51 Ravensbourne Park Crescent. The deceased had signed the 2016 transfer in the presence of the witness, whose evidence was accepted. The signature was genuine and the deceased had capacity in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 sense.
4. The relationship between the deceased and the claimant was one of trust and confidence. The transfer gave away a substantial part of the deceased’s interest in his matrimonial home for no objectively satisfactory reason and called for explanation. Applying Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2), the evidential burden shifted. The explanation given was inadequate. The transfer was procured by the claimant’s undue influence, with the granddaughter also involved in pressurising the deceased.
5. Alternatively, applying Re Beaney deceased and Kicks and another v Leigh, the deceased lacked the high degree of understanding required for a substantial lifetime gift. This conclusion concerned common-law capacity for the transaction, not incapacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
6. The transfer was set aside. The property remained legally and beneficially owned by the deceased and the claimant as tenants in common in equal shares. The parties were invited to draw up an order and encouraged to consider mediation.

First-instance determination of two preliminary issues in proceedings under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. No prior appellate decision was stated.