Throughout this report I will try to discuss and critically examine the facts of the case concerned, while doing this I will observe and identify the points which arise on each of the parties and come to a conclusion in whether any beneficial rights in the houses may be claimed by Rachel and Jane and how the size of their shares will be calculated.
Part A (i) (a): Jane
In order to establish express bargain constructive trust there must be an agreement or understanding between the legal owners and non-legal owners to share the equitable interest; the non-legal owners relied on that agreement and acted to their detriment. This is the Lord Bridge's criteria that Jane will need to satisfy using the case of Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset
Where the common intention is founded on express discussions then the existence of such discussions must be clearly established as Lord Steyn stated in Springette v Defoe 'Our law does not allow property rights to be affected by telepathy'.
Therefore Jane will have to establish an express discussion.
Creation of the express trust must comply with s53 (1) (B) Law of Property Act 1925 which requires evidence in writing. It will, however be enforceable because constructive trusts are exempted under s53 (2) .
According to Rosset, if Jane is to establish any interest in the property she must bring herself within one of the following categories. First she must show that the legal owner has made an express promise to her that she should have an interest and that she has relied on that promise to her detriment, as in Eves v Eves , Grant v Edwards and Babick v Thompson . Ahmed's words of assurance "in the near future when we marry the house will be yours" count for this...