Paul v Constance

infobox court case
name = "Paul v Constance"
court = Court of Appeal of England and Wales


date_decided = 8 July 1976
full_name = "Paul v Constance"
citations = [Case citation#England and Wales| [1977] 1 WLR 527 (CA)]
judges = Cairns LJ, Scarman LJ, Bridge LJ
Cases_cited = "Jones v Lock", "Richards v Delbridge", ""
Legislation_cited = None
prior_actions =
subsequent_actions =
Keywords = Trust

"Paul v Constance" is an important case in English trust law. It sets out what will be sufficient to establish the first of the "three certainties" necessary for a trust (certainty of intention). It is necessary that a settlor's "words and actions ... show a clear intention to dispose of property ... so that someone else acquires a beneficial interest." ["Paul v Constance" [1977] 1 WLR 527 (CA)]

Facts

Mr Constance, deceased, set up a bank account in his own name. On many occasions he stated to his de facto partner Mrs Paul (the plaintiff), that "The money is as much yours as mine." ["Paul v Constance" [1977] 1 WLR 527 (CA)]

Mr Constance was still legally married to Mrs Constance (the defendant). Mr Constance died intestate, and his assets including the account passed to the defendant.

Ratio decidendi

To establish a trust, there must be sufficient certainty of intention that the settlor is granting a beneficial interest to the beneficiary. This can be expressed orally, and no particular form of words or conduct are necessary. ["Paul v Constance" [1977] 1 WLR 527, 530-531 (CA)] The word 'trust' need not be used.However, an imperfect gift (as in "Jones v Lock") does not show sufficient certainty of intention.

References