Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Kirishani v Major [2026] EWHC 835 (Ch) (14 April 2026)
High Court appeal on cohabitees’ holiday and rent-related expenses. The court upheld dismissal of the claims, finding no error in the trial judge’s approach.
High Court appeal on whether cohabiting couples can be subject to a presumption against contractual intention. The appeal was dismissed.
Appeal about beneficial shares in a cohabiting couple’s home. The High Court upheld a 80.7%/19.3% division and dismissed challenges to the judge’s weighting of post-separation payments.
Fotheringhame v Nelson [2026] EWHC 632 (Ch) (27 March 2026)
Appeal dismissed in a cohabitee property dispute. The court upheld the trial judge’s 80.7/19.3 beneficial shares and found no material error in the weighing of evidence.
Bedford v Greig & Anor (Form RX1 application to enter a Form A and Form II restriction - claimed beneficial interest pursuant to a constructive or resulting trust or proprietary estoppel - cohabitees) [2025] UKFTT 1302 (PC) (16 October 2025)
The tribunal dismissed a cohabitee’s claim to a beneficial interest in Brighton property, finding no proven common intention, resulting trust, or proprietary estoppel.
The tribunal dismissed Thomas Bedford’s claim to a beneficial interest in 122 Stanford Avenue, finding no proved common intention, resulting trust, or proprietary estoppel.
Hampshire v Bonser [2025] EWCC 55 (23 September 2025)
The court found a common intention constructive trust in a home owned in one partner’s name and awarded the claimant 15% of net sale proceeds.
The county court found an inferred common intention constructive trust and awarded the claimant 15% of the net proceeds from the sale of Fron Oleu Hall.
The respondent's cohabitation constitutes a relevant change in circumstances but, given the cohabitee's current contributions, the respondent's health, and the impact of inflation, there is no justification for an immediate reduction in maintenance. A reduction to £750 per month is appropriate from the sale of the property or 1 September 2026, reflecting anticipated reduced housing costs and ongoing needs. The respondent's earning capacity has not materially improved, and the cohabitee is not expected to contribute more. The applicant can afford the current maintenance.
Source excerpt
The Wife failed to prove the Husband had beneficial interests in the properties other than BR. The pre-nuptial agreement was not sufficiently established or fair to be given weight. The only asset available is the Husband's non-matrimonial interest in BR, but the Wife's needs are currently met through cohabitation with RK. There are no matrimonial assets to share, and the Wife's claims are dismissed with a clean break order.
Source excerpt
Explore more
