Hussey v Palmer [1972] EWCA Civ 1 is an English trusts law case of the Court of Appeal.

A mother, Mrs Hussey, lived on the same property as her daughter at 9 Stanley Road, Wokingham.

The mother claimed that she had an interest in the property, and the daughter argued there was no proprietary right.

The Court of Appeal held by majority that a trust was created in favour of the plaintiff.

By whatever name it is described, it is a trust imposed by law whenever justice and good conscience require it.

It is an equitable remedy by which the court can enable an aggrieved party to obtain restitution.

It is comparable to the legal remedy of money had and received which, as Lord Mansfield said, is “very beneficial and therefore, much encouraged” [Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Burr 1005, 1012].

Instances are numerous where a wife has contributed money to the initial purchase of a house or property; or later on to the payment of mortgage instalments; or has helped in a business: see Falconer v Falconer [1970] 1 WLR 1333; Heseltine v Heseltine [1971] 1 W.L.R.

It is Unity Joint Stock Mutual Banking Association v King (1858) 25 Beav.

held that the two sons had a lien or charge on the property as against the father, and any person claiming through him.

That case was approved by the Privy Council in Chalmers v Pardoe [1963] 1 WLR 677, 681–682, where it was said to be based on the “general equitable principle that… it would be against conscience” for the owner to take the land without repaying the sums expended on the buildings.

To this I would add Inwards v Baker [1965] 2 QB 29, when a son built a bungalow on his father's land in the expectation that he would be allowed to stay there as his home, though there was no promise to that effect.

In the present case Mrs. Hussey paid £607 to a builder for the erection of this extension.

(1970), p. 210, in these words:[2] “Where the purchase money is provided by a third party at the request of and by way of loan to the person to whom the property is conveyed there is no resulting trust in favour of the third party, for the lender did not advance the purchase-money as purchaser… but merely as lender.” And it seems to me that that proposition is equally applicable where it is not a matter of the property being purchased, but a matter of a builder being paid for an extension to a property which already belongs to the borrower of the money.

As the particulars of claim stood, the only doubt that I could have had about the matter, if my judgment had been decisive, would be as to whether she should simply have the appeal dismissed or whether at this late stage she should have been given an opportunity of amending her particulars of claim and having a re-trial.