CLOSE SEARCH
Constructive and express trusts
We acted for the applicant in a complex property dispute arising from an 11-year personal relationship and commercial partnership. The case concerned a multi-property portfolio acquired pursuant to a shared long-term investment strategy.
Following the breakdown of the relationship, the respondent unilaterally sold a partnership asset, concealed the proceeds, and reinvested them through a newly incorporated company in an attempt to defeat our client’s beneficial interest. We successfully obtained an interim injunction preserving the traceable asset pending trial.
Over the course of the relationship, the parties acquired a portfolio of residential and investment properties (Properties A–E). The portfolio was built on a clear and repeatedly acknowledged common intention that all assets were owned equally.
Several properties were registered in joint names with express declarations of trust confirming a 50/50 beneficial split.
One property (Property D) was acquired at auction and registered in the respondent’s sole name purely to facilitate urgent bridging finance. Our client sourced the property, project-managed extensive renovations, and added significant value.
Equity released from Property D was subsequently used to acquire Property E, which the respondent placed into joint names — a critical indicator that Property D was always treated as a partnership asset regardless of legal title.
Throughout the relationship, there were contemporaneous written admissions confirming joint ownership of the portfolio and joint entitlement to rental income. Family contributions towards acquisitions were documented at the time as gifts, not loans.
Following separation, the respondent sought to resile from years of admissions and trust arrangements.
Property D was sold unilaterally without notice or consent. The net proceeds were concealed. The funds were reinvested via a newly incorporated company (Property F) co-owned with a new partner. When challenged, the respondent falsely denied the existence of the new property.
Independent investigations uncovered the true position, revealing a deliberate attempt to dissipate trust assets and place them beyond reach.
The legal prospects of our client claiming a 50% beneficial interest in Property D and its proceeds.
Whether the proceeds od sale could be traced into Property F, held through a corporate vehicle.
Whether applying for an injunction, which is risky, expensive and requires convincing the court that it should make an urgent order, was tactically the right approach with good prospects of success.
We applied for an injunction supported by evidence of:
A long-standing joint enterprise and repeated written admissions of equal ownership.
Clear detrimental reliance through extensive labour and project management.
Inconsistencies in the respondent’s treatment of family funding.
Documentary proof of concealment and false denials regarding the traceable asset.
The Court granted our injunction application,restraining dealings with the traceable property held via the corporate vehicle and ordering an account of the sale proceeds.
This case demonstrates the strength of constructive and express trust claims arising from cohabitation and/or the history of a fluid business relationship, the Court’s willingness to grant proprietary injunctive relief where assets are dissipated through corporate structures, and the limits of post-separation attempts to recharacterise ownership and funding arrangements.
Get in touch
If you would like to speak with a member of the team you can contact us on:
