Written evidence of agreements remains the most reliable proof of intention, says Laura Bednall
The number of couples choosing cohabitation over marriage is set to spiral over the next two decades, according to recent forecasts. But the new coalition government is showing no signs of reforming the law in this area to cope with this new social landscape. The law arguably remains ill-equipped to deal with the complex disputes over land ownership and claims for beneficial ownership which can arise when cohabitants split.
The recent case of Walsh v Singh [2009] EWHC 2319 (Ch) does not make new law, but provides a useful reiteration of the tried and tested principles in constructive trust cases, as well as scrutinising the nature of the relationship between the claimant and defendant. HHJ Purle QC’s decision serves as a stark warning to both couples and practitioners that claiming a beneficial interest in land is never straightforward, and that reliance on contributions alone is not always sufficient.
Background
The claimant (W) sought a declaration that she had a beneficial
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
