4. In relation to common intention to share beneficial interest, Lord Bridge views in Lloyds Bank v Rosset were that implied agreement through conduct is specific and would arise in the form of direct contributions to the purchase of the property or payment of mortgage instalments and he doubts if ‘anything less will do’. This approach has been heavily criticized by academics and by Lord Walker in Stack v Dowden : ‘Lord’s Bridge extreme doubt ‘whether anything less will do’ was certainly consistent with many first-instance and Court of Appeal decisions, but respectfully doubt whether it took full account of the views…Whether or not Lord Bridge’s observation was justified in 1990, in my opinion the law has moved on, and your Lordships should…show more content… Sweet earnings were devoted to the acquisition or maintenance of the home
8. Despite that Ms. Sweet did not contribute to the purchase price directly, the claimant could be entitled to the beneficial interest under a constructive trust because she paid most of the household expenses and by financing Mr. Stylo holidays she helped him pay for the mortgage. This statement can be supported by the case of Grant v Edwards and more particularly, what was stated by Nourse LJ:
’ I do not see how he would have been able to do that had it not been for the plaintiff's very substantial contribution to the other expenses.... In the circumstances, it seems that it may properly be inferred that the plaintiff did make substantial indirect contributions to the instalments payable under both mortgages.’
The outcome of the case was that Mrs Grant was entitled to the beneficial interest under a constructive trust. Because there was a common intention and she had acted to her detriment by making indirect contributions which would not have been done unless she had believed that she would have an interest in the…show more content… A similar approach has been taken in Midland Bank v. Cooke by Waite LJ. In relation to the recognition of a wife’s contribution to a marriage that she was entitled to some right in the property sufficient to defeat the claim of the bank to take the possession of the property from her. Waite LJ grants Mrs Cooke an entitlement in the home based on exactly the sort of ephemeral contributions which had prior to this case been rejected in Lloyds Bank v Rosset and Burns v Burns . By referring to the decision of Lord Diplock in Gissing and to the speech of Browne-Wilkinson V-C in Grant v Edwards , Waite LJ concluded the following