03333 231 580
Contact us
Natalie Matthews Bunting of DMH Stallard’s Family Department in Brighton acted for the successful first intervenor, a father who intervened in his daughter’s financial remedy court proceedings to recover his financial interest in farmland he had purchased for her agricultural endeavours. Mr Hugh Travers of Counsel from Pump Court Chambers represented the intervenor at the three-day preliminary issue hearing in January 2026.
The background
Parents intervening in their children’s divorce is becoming more frequent as children rely on their parents for financial support in adulthood. This case illustrates precisely why clear intentions surrounding the provision of funds for property purchases must be carefully documented and protected.
The case concerned two parcels of farmland — referred to in the judgment as SF and SDF — which, by the time of the financial remedy proceedings, were under offer for sale to a developer at nearly 25 times their original purchase price. In 2014, the father (IF) had paid the deposit for the purchase of SDF and continued to fund the rent until completion in February 2016, at which point the land was transferred into his daughter’s (W’s) sole name (later transferred into the joint names of her and her husband) using monies IF had provided. The understanding between father and daughter was that, on any future sale, IF would receive the return of his investment of £57,500 together with a share of the proceeds.
The competing claims
The case turned on two home-made declarations of trust, both dated within just days of each other in February 2016. The first declaration (DT2) was between the wife and her father (IF), providing IF with a financial interest comprising the first £57,500 and 40% of the balance of the net sale proceeds. The second declaration (DT1) was between the wife and her mother (JF) — IF’s ex-wife and the second intervenor — claiming to give JF 100% beneficial ownership of both parcels of farmland.
The wife and her mother contended that DT1 was executed first, thereby extinguishing any interest that IF might claim. They sought rectification of the Land Registry to remove the husband from the title and a declaration that JF held 100% beneficial ownership. IF, represented by DMH Stallard, contended that DT1 was a sham and that the trust in his favour (DT2) was valid.
The Financial Remedy Court’s findings
District Judge Hatvany delivered a comprehensive judgment in favour of DMH Stallard’s client. The court found that the evidence of the wife and her mother was “tainted by their jointly held profoundly negative view of IF“, and that the wife had rarely given focused answers to questions in cross-examination, preferring instead to adhere to a narrative that IF had coerced her. By contrast, the Judge found IF and the husband to be “more reliable witnesses“.
The Judge concluded that DT1 was a sham, finding that “neither W nor JF intended that the DT1 document created the legal rights and obligations which it gave the appearance of creating because it is plain from the above findings that W subsequently always regarded herself as the true beneficial owner. JF and W conspired together to create the document to punish H for perceived misdemeanours, but subsequent events make it clear that W always regarded herself as maintaining true beneficial ownership“.
Critically, the court found that the wife had never mentioned the purported trust in favour of her mother to her own conveyancing solicitors in 2022, nor to her New Zealand immigration lawyers in 2021, nor in detailed correspondence with IF’s lawyers. The wife had even declared on the 2021 TR1 form that she held the land on trust for herself and her husband as joint tenants — a position wholly inconsistent with the claim that JF held 100% beneficial ownership.
In contrast, the court upheld the validity of DT2, the trust in favour of IF, finding that it reflected the clear understanding of the parties at the time, supported by the provision of purchase monies and the contemporaneous notes of the conveyancing solicitors. The Judge further held that, even had DT2 been found to be invalid, IF would have had the benefit of a common intention constructive trust and/or resulting trust in his favour.
The outcome of KI vs SI
The court ordered that, after repayment to IF of his initial investment of £57,500, IF is entitled to a 40% share of the remainder of the proceeds of sale of SDF, with the husband and wife each holding a 30% share. With the farmland under offer for a combined sum of nearly £2 million, the significance of the victory is substantial. The Judge’s preliminary view was that the wife and JF should pay IF’s and the husband’s costs, to be summarily assessed.
A broader message
This judgment sends a strong message to parents and children alike. As the case summary notes, KI v SI gives clear authority that parents’ intentions surrounding funds provided for the purchase of land or property will be upheld by the Court, whether those intentions have been formally recorded against the HM Land Registry title or not. In an era where parents increasingly provide financial support for their children’s property purchases, this decision underscores the importance of properly documenting the terms of such arrangements — and serves as a warning that any attempt to create sham documents to defeat a legitimate interest is likely to be exposed and struck down.
KI (Applicant husband) v SI (Respondent wife) (Sham trusts and intervenor proceedings in financial remedy claims) [2026] EWFC 73 (B)
DMH Stallard’s Family lawyers, led in this matter by Natalie Matthews Bunting, are experienced in handling complex intervenor proceedings and financial remedy claims involving disputed property interests. This landmark result demonstrates the firm’s expertise in navigating the intersection of trust law and family law to protect clients’ financial interests in the most challenging of circumstances. For further information, please contact us by email or call +44(0)3333 231 580.
