The Weekly Law Reports, October 23, iy7U

1336
Lord Denning M.R. Falconer v. Falconer (C.A.) [1970]
It has no place, or, at any rate, very little place, in our law today: see A
Pettitt V. Pettitt [1970] A.C. 777, per Lord Reid at p. 793, per Lord
Hodson at p. 811 and per Lord Diplock at p. 824. We have decided these
cases now for some years without much regard to a presumption of
advancement, and I think we should continue so to do. It is fair to say
that Miss Wilkins did not press the point.
The next point taken by the wife in the notice of appeal is that " while
the parties lived together, the husband's contributions were made wholly
or mainly in respect of housekeeping expenses": that, on this account,
they should not be regarded as contributions to the house or to paying
off the mortgage instalments. This sort of point was discussed in Gissing
v. Gissing [1970] 3 W.L.R. 255, and I will try to distil what was said.
The House did not overturn any of the previous cases in this court on
the subject. They can, I think, still provide good guidance. But the C
House did make clear the legal basis for them. It stated the principles
on which a matrimonial home, which stands in the name of husband or
wife alone, is nevertheless held to belong to them both jointly (in equal
or unequal shares). It is done, not so much by virtue of an agreement,
express or implied, but rather by virtue of a trust which is imposed by
law. The law imputes to husband and wife an intention to create a trust,
the one for the other. It does so by way of an inference from their ^
conduct and the surrounding circumstances, even though the parties them-
selves made no agreement upon it. This inference of a trust, the one for
the other, is readily drawn when each has made a financial contribution
to the purchase price or to the mortgage instalments. The financial con-
tribution may be direct, as where it is actually stated to be a contribution
towards the price or the instalments. It may be indirect, as where both go E
out to work, and one pays the housekeeping and the other the mortgage
instalments. It does not matter which way round it is. It does not matter
who pays what. So long as there is a substantial financial contribution
towards the family expenses, it raises the inference of a trust. But
where it is insubstantial, no such inference can be drawn: see the cases
collected in the dissenting judgment of Edmund Davies L.J. in the Court
F
of Appeal [1969] 2 Ch. 85, 97, which was upheld by the House. The
House did, however, sound a note of warning about proportions. It is not
in every case that the parties hold in equal shares. Regard must be had
to their respective contributions. This confirms the practice of this court.
In quite a few cases we have not given half-and-half but something different.
It seems to me that the judge decided this case on those principles,
even though he did so before the House decided Gissing v. Gissing [1970] G
3 W.L.R. 255. He took the plot of land and found that it was paid for
altogether by the wife or her mother. So the land itself should be regarded
as hers. But he found that the building was paid for by both of them.
The husband paid £ 105 to the builder. He and his father guaranteed
the mortgage. His payments for housekeeping helped the wife a great
deal to enable her to pay the mortgage instalments. So the judge decided „
that the building itself, as distinct from the land, should be regarded as
belonging to them equally, half-and-half. The judge realised, of course,
that the house and land would continue to be occupied by the wife or
sold. So he gave the husband a charge and directed an inquiry to
ascertain the figures. They would appear likely to work out something
as follows: the value of the house and land together is £ 5,000 to £ 6,000.
The mortgage outstanding is £ 2,500. That leaves an equity of £ 2,500 or

188