header-logo header-logo

Declaration of trust: is it conclusive?

21 March 2025 / Mark Pawlowski
Issue: 8109 / Categories: Features , Property , Trusts
printer mail-detail
211933
Can an express declaration of trust be varied informally by a common intention constructive trust? By Mark Pawlowski
  • Explores a recent High Court decision that calls into question the orthodox view on express declared trusts.
  • Questions how the courts will seek to reconcile the need for clarity in this area.

The orthodox view, until recently, has been that an express trust is conclusive of the parties’ intentions regarding beneficial ownership of the family home, irrespective of whether the contributions to purchase are made at the time of acquisition of the property or at a later date. In other words, an express declared trust precludes the possibility of a common intention constructive trust based on differential contributions to the purchase price until the declared trust is formally varied by subsequent agreement or displaced by the informal mechanism of proprietary estoppel. However, a recent High Court decision, Nilsson v Cynberg [2024] EWHC 2164 (Ch), has called this orthodoxy into question.

The orthodox view

The point is specifically addressed

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School and the Frenkel Topping Group—AKA The insider—crowns Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP as his case of 2025 in his latest column for NLJ. The High Court’s decision—that non-authorised employees cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision—has sent shockwaves through the profession. Regan calls it the year’s defining moment for civil practitioners and reproduces a ‘cut-out-and-keep’ summary of key rulings from Mr Justice Sheldon
back-to-top-scroll