Unconscionability, Constructive Trusts and Proprietary Estoppel Culliford v Thorpe [2018] EWHC 426 (Ch)

Recently, there has been much academic and judicial discourse on the relationship between the doctrines of proprietary estoppel and the common intention constructive trust.1 In particular, the debate has centred on the question whether there is any real difference between the two doctrines when applied in the context of establishing proprietary interests in land, particularly where the land is shared between two or more individuals but the legal title is only taken in the name of one of them. In the recent High Court decision in Culliford v Thorpe2 the court had to consider, inter alia, whether the doctrines of proprietary estoppel and the common intention constructive trust were mutually exclusive or whether they could be applied contemporaneously to the same set of facts to reach the same remedial response. This case note examines the decision in Culliford v Thorpe3 and explains that the two doctrines demonstrate the wider notion of unconscionability which lies at the heart of equitable intervention.