Curran v Collins [2015] EWCA Civ 404

A woman claimed shares in properties held in her former partner’s sole name and in a business operated from one of them. She relied on the length of their relationship, alleged financial contributions and his explanation that adding her name to the title would be too expensive. The trial judge rejected important parts of her factual evidence and did not find the common ownership arrangement or partnership asserted. She appealed, arguing that the judge had mishandled the evidence and the significance of the explanation for excluding her name. The appellate court had to assess both the legal test and the trial findings.

Did the trial findings establish a common intention to share sole-name properties, particularly through alleged contributions and the explanation for leaving the claimant off the title?

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The claimant had to establish a basis for sharing the beneficial ownership of properties held in the defendant’s sole name. The trial judge’s findings about contributions, credibility and the context of the alleged explanation were open on the evidence. A specious excuse for not putting someone on title does not automatically prove an agreement that they nevertheless own a share. Such statements may support that inference in an appropriate context, but the inference is factual rather than compulsory. The appeal could not succeed merely by inviting a different assessment of witnesses and circumstances which the trial judge had properly evaluated.

In a sole-name property claim, a claimant must establish the relevant common intention and reliance. An excuse for excluding the claimant from title is evidence to assess in context, not an automatic admission of shared beneficial ownership.

Curran provides an important qualification when comparing Grant v Edwards and other cases involving explanations for sole title. It prevents a memorable phrase being treated as a shortcut around proof. The decision also illustrates appellate restraint over justified factual findings. It should not be overstated as a rule that only direct financial contributions can support beneficial ownership; the claimant failed on the particular facts and evidence accepted.