Bisiker v Bisiker: High Court dismisses trust claim over £3m family home

The High Court has dismissed a claim brought by one sibling against her family over the beneficial ownership of a substantial Hampshire property, ruling that it belongs outright to the sister who has held the legal title since its purchase over four decades ago.

In Lindsay Bisiker v Judith Ann Bisiker and others [2026] EWHC 2070 (Ch), heard in the Business and Property Courts, Master Marsh, sitting in retirement, considered a dispute between five adult siblings over a property known as Moonhills, bought in 1984 with funds provided entirely by their father, Jim, and registered in the name of the first defendant, Judith. The claimant, Lindsay, argued that Judith held the property on trust, variously, for the five children, or for the wider family including their parents. Judith counterclaimed for a declaration that she owns the property both legally and beneficially, subject only to a moral commitment to divide the sale proceeds equally among the siblings.

The judgement placed particular weight on evidence from the solicitor who acted on the 1984 purchase, who recalled that Jim had firmly rejected a suggestion at the time that a formal declaration of trust be drawn up naming his children as beneficiaries, preferring instead to rely on his trust in Judith to do the right thing when the property was eventually sold. The court found this account, corroborated by a family friend with no interest in the outcome, more persuasive than later assertions made by Jim, who by 2023 was found to lack the mental capacity required to make a disputed statement asserting that the property belonged to him or was held in trust for the family.

That finding on capacity proved significant. The claimant had relied heavily on a statement signed by her father in May 2023, procured without the knowledge of his second wife and litigation friend, in circumstances the court described as involving "a degree of subterfuge." Weighing conflicting expert evidence, the judge preferred a detailed psychiatric assessment recording moderate dementia over a more limited capacity report obtained by the claimant, which the court found had likely assessed the wrong document altogether.

Applying the principles set out by the Privy Council in Gany Holdings (PTC) SA v Khan [2018] UKPC 21 and the Court of Appeal's guidance in Lavelle v Lavelle [2004] EWCA Civ 223 on the admissibility of later conduct as evidence of earlier intention, the court concluded that documentary evidence from the two decades following the purchase, including correspondence with tax advisers in which the father consistently described the property as belonging to Judith, told a more reliable story than family exchanges from 2015 onwards, by which point relations had become strained over the wider question of the father's estate.

The judgement noted that the father had, at the time of the purchase, deliberately chosen not to create a trust and had instead retained informal control through a will and an option agreement in his favour, tools consistent with someone who understood the available structures and chose not to use them for the children's benefit. The court found no agreement or common intention in 1984 that the property would be held on trust, and declared that it was purchased for Judith to hold absolutely.

Judith was granted the declaration sought in her counterclaim, with the question of any further relief relating to a sale left over for later determination.