A number of factors disqualified the ‘deserted wife’s equity’ from recognition as a property right in National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175:

IntroductionI suggest you look at the developing concepts of fairness, because this is why the MHA 1967 was developed. copy officeed Estoppel for cohabitees is becoming less prevalent due to the decisions in family home trust. Thus, fairness is at the centre of the approach, overleap the clear provision of a proprietorship interest is necessary and non merely the provision of a roof over the others head. This is common to Ainsworth, proprietary estoppel and the family home constructive trust. The rationale is that it would non be fair to impose a proprietary remedy without a proprietary intention.The case of theme boor Bank Ltd v Ainsworth 1965 AC 1175 holds a limited approach to understanding non-occupiers rights in space.National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth held that the common law right for the husband to provide a roof over the head of the deserted married woman was merely in personam. This means selling the property to a third party impart allow the husband to avoi d his obligation to his deserted wifeIt is important to note that it predates the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967 (MHA 1967).The MHA 1967was developed to remedy the flaw in National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth, which indicates that the legislature recognised that the existing law with respect to deserted wifes equity and its enforceability against third parties was manifestly unfair.The law on proprietary estoppel provides that the third party find their rights will be interfered with.The elements of proprietary estoppel can result in an in personam right defeating an in rem right if the following element is fulfilledReasonable belief that the person will have interest in property Acts reasonably in reliance Gillet v HoltThis is illustrated in a number of cases that have convey that the main factor is that there is a clear reflexion of a proprietary right in the property (Thorner v Major 2009 UKHL 18). The case of Walsh v Singh 2010 1 FLR 1658 held that conduct add-on detriment is not enough is not enough to allow a claim for proprietary estoppel. In addition, the case of Negus v Bahouse 2008 1 FCR 768 held that statement to provide a roof over the individuals head or a determination to move in is not enough to allow a claim for proprietary estoppel.The Negus v Bahouse Case is, in part, applies the same formulaic approach, as The implication is that there has to be a clear look of a proprietary right, in order for proprietary estoppel to be used.There are a series of cases on the constructive family home trust, which may change the goal posts on what an expression of a proprietary right when it comes to a spousal/partner interest. These cases are Oxley v Hiscock 2004 EWCA Civ 546, which identified that in family relationship there is an obligation to ensure that there is fairness in the rights of a non-property owning spouse/partner.In these cases the use of the constructive trust would be better for the family member who has relied on a property right inf erred by the property owning spouse/partner (The deserted wife (partner) has to show that she has any interest in it the property at all (Stack v Dowden at 56). This means the intention is imputed through the relationship (i.e. relationship plus contribution = share in the property). Thus, both proprietary estoppel and the family home constructive trust has move external from the in personam right not trumping an in rem right. However, for this to work there has to be a clear expression of a proprietary interest and not merely providing a roof over the individuals head (Negus v Bahouse cf. National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth for similarity).The come to of the fairness rulings in Oxley v Hiscock. Stock v Dowden and Jones v Kernott may change the mere expression argument if the nature of the relationship imputes an assumption of a proprietary right. Thus, potentially the obligation to provide a roof over the head of the other party is sufficient.Additional References to Conside r on top of branded EstoppelBaroness Deech, Cohabitation 2010 Family Law 39Fretwell, K Fairness is what justice really is Kernott v Jones in the Supreme apostrophize (2011) Family Law 41(7)Hayward, AP Family plaza and the Process of Familialization of piazza Law (2012) Child and Family Law Quarterly 24(3)McGhee, M switching the Scales of Social Justice in the Cohabitation Context The Juridical Basis for the Varying of interests in Residential Property (2012) Oxford University Law Journal 1(19)Mee, J Burns v Burns The Villain of the Piece? in Probert, R, Herring, J and Gilmore, S Landmark Cases in Family Law (Hart, 2011)Mee, J Ambulation, Severance and the Common Intention Constructive self-confidence (2012) Law Quarterly Review 128(500)Miles, J Charman v Charman (No 4) 2007 EWCA Civ 503 making sense of need compensation and qualified sharing after Millar MacFarlane (2008) Child and Family Law Quarterly 20(376)Pawlowski, M Joint ownership and the family home (2011) Property L aw Review, 1(68)Probert, R Cohabitation Current Legal Solutions (2009) Current Legal Problems 62(1)Probert, R Cohabitation in Twentieth coke England and Wales (2004) Law and Policy 26(1)Smithdale, J Inference, Imputation, or BothConfusion Persists over Beneficial Interests in the Family Home (2011) CSLR 74, p 79