Chaudhary v Chaudhary [2013] EWCA Civ 758

Mr Chaudhary acquired a house in his own name while his father and stepmother contributed £5,000 towards the deposit. They occupied the property under a tenancy arrangement and hoped to acquire it themselves in the future. Following the father's death, a dispute arose between Mr Chaudhary and his stepmother about rent and beneficial ownership. The judge initially rejected her claim to an interest. She appealed, arguing that the deposit payment represented a contribution to the purchase rather than a gift. The Court of Appeal examined what the contributors intended when the money was provided.

Did the £5,000 deposit contribution establish a beneficial interest through a resulting trust, and did that interest necessarily extinguish the occupier's contractual rent obligations?

The Court of Appeal recognised an 8% beneficial interest arising from the contribution. Aikens LJ considered the contributors' intentions, including their expectation of eventually buying the property. The evidence did not establish that the £5,000 had been intended as a gift to the registered owner. The resulting-trust analysis therefore gave effect to the contribution despite title being held in his sole name. The presumption of advancement did not resolve these particular circumstances in the owner's favour. The beneficial ownership issue was distinct from the consequences of the tenancy. Holding an equitable share did not, by itself, answer every question concerning the rent claimed under the parties' occupation arrangements.

A contribution to a property's purchase price may support a resulting trust where the money was not intended as a gift. The parties' actual intentions and relationship matter. Acquiring a beneficial share does not automatically remove separate contractual obligations concerning occupation.

Chaudhary provides an example of a resulting trust outside the usual joint-name cohabitation dispute. The deposit and the contributors' intentions were central, rather than a general allocation of ownership according to fairness. It can be compared with Dyer v Dyer and Fowkes v Pascoe when discussing presumptions and evidence of gifts. Keep the ownership calculation separate from any tenancy or accounting question: an equitable share does not itself rewrite the occupier's contract.