ained that a constructive trust will be imposed in circumstances where the conduct of the parties is such that it can easily be inferred that there was a quid pro quo agreement between them.2 In other words there must be an agreement between the parties that when one party acts to his own detriment under the reasonable understanding that he/she would acquire an interest in the property and agreement to this extent will be inferred.
. On the facts of the case for discussion, the decision for Barry to give up his work and look after John’s child from a previous relationship appears to be a joint decision. It also appears that the arrangements were such as to facilitate John’s job with the understanding that he would take care of Barry. At this stage there were no discussions about Barry acquiring an interest in the house, so it cannot be determined at this stage that the parties had an agreement that Barry would by giving up work and minding the child would acquire an interest in the property. However, when Barry brings the subject up, John reassures Barry that the only reason the property is not placed in their joint names is because it would compromise his divorce settlement. He also goes on to reassure Barry that he will always take care of him. These latter reassurances can be interpreted as a promise that Barry would acquire an interest in the property should they retain the status quo. Moreover a similar scenario arose in Grant v Edwards where the male cohabitant told the female cohabitant that the only reason the property was not in their joint names was because it would have compromised his divorce proceedings it was held that the statement was evidence of a shared intention that the female inhabitant would acquire an interest in the home.3
The presumption in law is therefore that the parties had a shared intention that Barry by continuing to remain at home, taking care of the child would be rewarded by his acquiring an equitable interest in