© Getty images
A meticulous record of shared spending was not enough to establish a legally enforceable agreement between cohabiting partners: Chris Bryden & Tori Adams examine an unusual case
- Covers Kirishani v Major, in which a couple went to court over about £38,000 worth of expenditure when their two-year relationship ended.
- Raises questions about inferred intention between unmarried cohabitees and whether the presumption against intention to create legal relations exists as it would between a married couple.
To what extent will a court infer an intention to create contractual relations in connection to dealings between unmarried cohabitees, and does the presumption against an intention to create legal relations arise in the same way as between a married couple? These were the questions that Sir Anthony Mann asked himself when considering an appeal against the dismissal of claims for a contribution to household and other domestic expenses, mainly comprising holiday expenses, and a claim for monies paid in respect of occupation of property.
This case, Kirishani v Major
