In the recent decision in the case of Dobson v Griffey, the High Court considers whether a co-habitee has a beneficial interest in a property owned solely by her partner.

What were the facts of the case?

Ms Dobson and Mr Griffey were in a romantic relationship for a number of years and lived together in rented accommodation before deciding to buy a property. In February 2007, Mr Griffey purchased a farm in his sole name and funded the purchase by way of a mortgage.

For a number of years following the purchase, the parties lived together at the farm. The farm was renovated significantly with Ms Dobson overseeing works to the livery and farmhouse, but with Mr Griffey funding the project.

The relationship between the parties broke down in 2012 and the farm was subsequently sold. After the sale, emails passed between the parties in which Mr Griffey offered Ms Dobson 50% of the proceeds of sale; however, this was never paid to Ms Dobson.

Ms Dobson brought a claim on the basis that she was entitled to 50% of the proceeds of sale. Ms Dobson's case was that there was an agreement between the parties that they would each have an equal interest in the farm, and Ms Dobson had relied on this agreement to her detriment. Ms Dobson also said that she contributed £10,000 to the purchase of the farm, but this was denied by Mr Griffey who could account for all of the purchase monies.

What were the issues before the Court?

The Court had to consider whether Ms Dobson had established an interest in the farm and the following points were considered:

  • Was there a common intention between the parties to share the beneficial interest in the farm at the time of purchase?
  • Did Ms Dobson's contributions to the farm works give rise to an interest in the farm?
  • If there was an agreement, had Ms Dobson relied on that agreement to her detriment?
  • Could Mr Griffey's actions after the sale of the farm be considered evidence of his intention?

What did the Court decide?

The Court considered all of the issues and held that Ms Dobson had failed to establish an interest in the farm and therefore she was not entitled to any of the proceeds of sale.

Court concluded that there was no agreement between the parties at the time of the purchase, Ms Dobson's submissions in relation to the agreement between the parties and the justification for omitting her name from the title were rejected, and the judge commented that:

"It seems to be to be a fig-leaf invented to protect her own self-respect. Mr Griffey was paying for the farm, and he wanted it to be his own exclusive property. This may have been ungenerous, but it was not morally wrong, let alone legally so."

In respect of Ms Dobson's claim in relation to her contributions to the farm, again the Court found that there was no agreement between the parties that Ms Dobson would carry out those works in order to increase the value of a property to which she claimed to have an interest. The judge made the following comments:

"in a case like the present, a person in the position of Ms Dobson might well be expected to do the kind of things which she did because of the relationship that she enjoyed with Mr Griffey, the home she had made with him at the farm, and the aspirations which they had for the future, rather than some alleged agreement between the parties"

On the basis of the judge's comments made above, he found that there was no common intention between the parties to share the beneficial interest in the farm, and therefore a "common intention constructive trust" could not be established. In order to do so, the parties' intentions need to be mutual, and in this case they were not.

Further, Ms Dobson cannot seek to rely on the doctrine of proprietary estoppel where Ms Dobson's expectations were not supported by assurances from Mr Griffey or by his conduct.

Finally, the judge rejected Ms Dobson's arguments that the emails sent following the sale of the farm showed that Mr Griffey always intended for her to have a 50% share in the farm. The emails were not evidence of the parties' intentions at the time of purchase.

Writer's comments

This case serves as a reminder of the difficulties for co-habitees in establishing an interest in a property which is solely owned by another party, even where there have been significant contributions of time and effort to the property by the co-habitee.

It also makes clear that it is property law, rather than family law that applies to establishing and creating a beneficial interest in a property. In establishing interest, much will depend on the intention of the owner to share the beneficial interest with the co-habitee. Subsequent actions to make physical improvements to the property may be evidence that the co-habitee relied on an agreement that he/she had an interest in the property and may mean that the owner cannot now renege on that agreement. However, evidence will be needed of such an agreement and evidence will be needed that the co-habitees efforts were more than just about making a home with the owner.

In order to avoid disputes of this nature, it is therefore important for the parties to fully consider what their intentions are at the time of purchase, and where possible, have these formally recorded to prevent issues arising in the future.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.