Also in Pettit v Pettit [1970] AC 777 and Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886 established early

considerations for the Common Intention Constructive Trust (CICT). These cases emphasized the
necessity for a claimant to demonstrate a common intention between the parties that both were to
have an interest in the property, along with acting to their detriment relying on that common intention.
They underscored that a mere hope or expectation of a share in the property is insufficient for
establishing a beneficial interest.

In Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107, a pivotal case concerning the establishment of a
Common Intention Constructive Trust (CICT) in situations where one party holds the legal title to a
property, Lord Bridge elucidated the fundamental criteria for such a trust to be recognized. He
underscored that for a CICT to exist, it is essential to demonstrate two key elements. Firstly, there must
be a clear and mutual intention between the parties to share ownership of the property. This intention
needs to be objectively ascertainable, indicating a genuine agreement between the parties regarding
their respective interests in the property. Secondly, the party seeking to establish an equitable interest
in the property must show that they have acted to their detriment based on their reliance on this shared
intention. This means that they must have significantly altered their position, usually to their financial
disadvantage, due to their belief in the existence of a shared understanding regarding property
ownership.

While Lord Bridge's approach in Rosset was subject to some scrutiny and debate, particularly in
the case of Stack v Dowden, subsequent Court of Appeal decisions such as Morris v Morris and James v
Thomas have affirmed the ongoing relevance and applicability of his criteria, particularly in cases where
the legal title is solely in the name of one party. These cases have highlighted the enduring importance
of proving both the existence of a mutual intention to share ownership and the occurrence of a
detriment suffered by the claiming party due to their reliance on this intention. This reaffirms the
significance of establishing a clear and unequivocal agreement between parties regarding property
ownership, as well as the tangible impact of acting upon this agreement, when seeking to establish a
CICT in circumstances where the legal title is held by one party alone.