1. Fred and Gail began to live together in 2016. At that time, both of them had good jobs, and they decided to buy a house costing £150,000. Fred paid £25,000 towards the purchase price, and Gail (who had recently inherited a substantial sum on her grandfather's death) paid £75,000. The balance, £50,000, was made up with a loan from the Eastland Building Society; the loan was secured by a legal charge over the house. The house was transferred to Gail only, who became the first and sole registered proprietor of it. This was done because Fred was worried about possible claims which might be made by his wife, from whom he had been separated since 1998, and also because Gail, if she pretended to the building society that the house was to be just her property, could take advantage of a favourable "first time buyer" mortgage offer. In 2019, the couple fell on hard times: they both lost their jobs. Fred has just returned from a lengthy trip abroad in search of work to discover that Gail had (without his knowledge) granted a mortgage over the house to the Quickbuck Finance Company Ltd., the mortgage securing a loan of £150,000 made by the company to her. Gail, it transpires, used part of the £150,000 to discharge the mortgage to the Eastland Building Society and has disappeared with the rest of the money. Yesterday, possession proceedings were instituted by Quickbuck. Advise Fred. Would your answer differ if (i) Quickbuck instead sought an order for possession and sale under TLATA, s. 14 or (ii) sought to have Gail declared bankrupt because she had defaulted on the mortgage debt? I consider first whether F, who is not a legal owner of the house, has any equitable interest in it as a result of the dealings between him and G. As the context is a 'domestic consumer' one (F and G were cohabiting), the Stack presumption that 'equity follows the law' applies, and it will be for Fred to establish that the parties' common intention was that that he should have any beneficial share at all in the property held at all in G's name. Relevant factors on the facts include the parties' respective financial contributions and the express discussions that they had as to reason why the property was to be held in G's sole name. Given that F made a financial contribution to the purchase price and may possibly have contributed to the mortgage repayments and to household bills (we are not given details of such contributions albeit we are told both had good jobs), it seems very likely that the requisite common intention can be established here. As regards the parties' reasons for the property being held in G's sole name, although an aspect of this would appear to have been an intention on their part to defraud F's ex-wife and/or the court in divorce proceedings and/or the building society, following Patel v Mirza it is unlikely that F's claim