Chris Bryden and Tori Adams examine Kirishani v Major, involving approximately £38,000 of disputed household, holiday and rent expenditure following the breakdown of an unmarried couple’s relationship.
Despite detailed records of shared expenses, the claimant failed to establish an intention to create legally enforceable obligations. The court held that the presumption against legal relations may extend beyond married couples where the relationship is essentially domestic and non-commercial, with its application depending on the relationship’s substance rather than the “cohabitee” label.
The authors question whether this produces fair outcomes for modern couples who maintain financial independence and consider whether unjust enrichment might offer an alternative remedy in appropriate circumstances. Their analysis highlights an important practical lesson: cohabiting partners who want their financial arrangements to be enforceable should consider an express cohabitation agreement rather than relying on informal understandings or financial records.
