Amanda Wade & Anor v Mohinder Singh & Ors

In determining beneficial ownership of jointly registered land, the court must distinguish an express trust, a common intention constructive trust and a resulting trust. An alleged express trust requires clear evidence of an intention to create a trust. A common intention constructive trust requires both a shared intention that beneficial ownership differs from the legal title and detrimental reliance on that intention. Contributions and conduct may be relevant to both inquiries. A later declaration cannot be treated as merely evidencing an earlier trust where its operative terms are inconsistent with that account. A transaction transferring a beneficial interest for no consideration falls within Insolvency Act 1986, s.423(1); the statutory purpose need only be one purpose, not the sole or dominant purpose.

The joint liquidators of MSD Cash and Carry plc sought to enforce charging orders against properties owned by members of the Singh family. The defendants contended that The Oaks, registered jointly in the names of Mohinder Singh and Raminder Kaur Deol, had been held beneficially for Raminder since its acquisition in 2003. In the alternative, they relied on a common intention constructive trust or on a declaration of trust executed in 2017.

The liquidators alleged that the 2017 Declaration was a sham or, alternatively, a transaction defrauding creditors under Insolvency Act 1986, s.423. The central issues were whether Raminder had acquired more than an equal beneficial interest and whether the Declaration should be set aside.

1. Express trust. The Oaks was legally and beneficially owned by Mohinder and Raminder in equal shares immediately before the Declaration. The evidence did not establish an express declaration of trust in 2003. General statements about a future family home or eventual ownership by grandchildren did not objectively manifest an intention to create a trust.
2. Constructive trust. A common intention constructive trust requires a common intention that beneficial ownership differs from the legal title and detrimental reliance on that intention. The court found neither. Raminder’s expenditure and work were consistent with her existing position as a joint legal and beneficial owner and did not establish detriment. Any presumption of advancement could not improve her position beyond the equal share reflected by the legal title.
3. Declaration. The Declaration was not a sham. Its revocation clause gave Mohinder a non-fiduciary power to revest his former interest, so the document itself explained the parties’ ability to present the property as Raminder’s while preserving substantial rights for Mohinder. Its operative provisions were inconsistent with a merely evidential declaration of a trust dating from 2003.
4. Section 423. The Declaration was entered into for no consideration and therefore was a transaction at an undervalue. The statutory purpose in Insolvency Act 1986, s.423(3)(a), need only be one purpose. The revocation power, the timing of the Declaration amid claims by HMRC and the liquidator, and the surrounding advice supported the inference that Mohinder intended to put his beneficial interest beyond the reach of a claimant.
5. Order. The Declaration was set aside and the beneficial interest in The Oaks vested in Mohinder and Raminder in equal one-half shares. Applications for orders for sale and consequential matters were left for a further hearing.

This was a first-instance trial in the High Court. The judgment records earlier misfeasance proceedings and an inquiry judgment, but no appeal from those decisions is described.