| Paul v Constance | |
| Court: | Court of Appeal of England and Wales |
| Date Decided: | 8 July 1976 |
| Citations: | [1976] EWCA Civ 2, [1977] 1 WLR 527 |
| Judges: | Scarman LJ Cairns LJ Bridge LJ |
| Cases Cited: | Jones v Lock, Richards v Delbridge, |
| Keywords: | Trust, intention, certainty |
Paul v Constance. 1976. EWCA. Civ. 2. / [1977] 1 W.L.R. 527 is an English trust law case. It sets out what will be sufficient to establish that someone has intended to create a trust, the first of the "three certainties". 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."[1]
Mr Constance's marriage broke down, and he moved in with Ms Paul. After a workplace accident, he received £950 in damages, and following discussions with a bank manager, paid it into a new joint account. They were unmarried, so the account was put in Mr Constance's name. He said repeatedly, ‘the money is as much yours as mine’. They also paid in joint bingo winnings too, and they made a £150 withdrawal, which they split. But 13 months later, Mr Constance died without a will. Ms Paul claimed the account was hers. Mrs Constance reappeared and claimed the money was hers.
The Court of Appeal held that the parties' words and conduct demonstrated that he wished for the money to be held on trust for Mr Constance and Ms Paul jointly. Scarman LJ gave the first judgment.
Bridge LJ concurred, and quoted Richards v Delbridge[2] where Sir George Jessel MR said, "It is true he need not use the words 'I declare myself a trustee,' but he must do something which is equivalent to it, and use expressions which have that meaning, for, however anxious the court may be to carry out a man’s intentions, it is not at liberty to construe words otherwise than according to their proper meaning."
Cairns LJ also concurred.