Unmarried couples who live together in England and Wales do not have special legal rights when they split up. There’s no statutory scheme to divide property. Instead, disputes are dealt with under general property and equity law. One key principle is the common intention constructive trust (CICT).
A CICT can give a partner a share in a home, even if they’re not named on the title. To succeed, the claimant must prove that both parties intended to share ownership of the property and that they acted to their detriment based on that understanding – like contributing money or giving up other opportunities.
This article looks at the recent case of Hampshire v Bonser [2025] EWCC 55. It shows how courts try to work out, from the evidence, what share of a property each partner actually intended. The case involved an unmarried couple who lived together for 25 years in a committed relationship. The dispute centred on a guesthouse that they shared, which had been bought in Ms Bonser’s sole name.
The facts of the case
Mr Hampshire, now in his 80s, brought a claim under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA), which governs disputes over property ownership between cohabiting partners.
The claim concerned Fron Oleu Hall, a former guesthouse in North Wales which had been his home with Ms Bonser, his partner of around 25 years.
The property had been bought in 2000 for £180,000 in Ms Bonser’s sole name, using the proceeds of sale of her previous home. She argued that this meant she was the sole owner of both the legal and beneficial interests.
Mr Hampshire had not contributed to the purchase price, but he had:
- carried out practical renovation work at Fron Oleu,
- worked front of house when it operated as a guesthouse between 2002 and 2005,
- sold his own property in the Midlands to fund a jointly owned neighbouring house, which was later sold and the proceeds shared equally, and
- continued to help with upkeep and gardening for many years, even after Ms Bonser suffered a stroke.
When Fron Oleu was eventually sold in 2023 for £850,000, Mr Hampshire argued that there had been a shared understanding he would have “a stake” in the home.
The Court’s decision
The Court applied the principles from Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432 and Jones v Kernott [2012] 1 AC 776, focusing on whether there was a common intention to share ownership and whether Mr Hampshire had acted to his detriment in reliance on that intention.
The Judge accepted that this was a long, committed, “quasi-marital” relationship. While Ms Bonser had made the lion’s share of financial contributions, it would not have been fair to ignore Mr Hampshire’s sacrifices. In particular, he sold his own property, gave up secure employment, carried out renovation and maintenance work at the guesthouse, and made personal sacrifices in reliance on their shared life together.
While the legal principles were central, the judge’s decision was heavily influenced by how each party gave evidence.
Significantly, the Judge was struck by the manner in which evidence was given. Ms Bonser’s evidence was described as “openly hostile” and “bitter”, and where her account conflicted with Mr Hampshire’s, the Court preferred his version of events. By contrast, Mr Hampshire came across as measured and consistent.
The judge’s comments on the parties’ demeanour were particularly striking:
“The Defendant was openly hostile in her manner towards the Claimant. It was interesting to observe the Defendant’s daughters in the courtroom and their body language and their faces also showed such hostility towards the Claimant. At no stage, did I sense any hostility from the Claimant. I therefore have to question much of what the Defendant said in the witness box.”
This case is a stark reminder that in property disputes, where parties offer conflicting accounts of the facts, the way evidence is given – including demeanour, consistency, and tone – can play a crucial role in whose version the judge finds more credible and ultimately prefers.
The Court held that Mr Hampshire was entitled to a 15% share of the net proceeds of sale (about £125,000).
Why this matters for cohabiting couples
The case shows just how risky it can be for couples who live together without being married or in a civil partnership when the home is in only one person’s name. The law does not automatically give cohabitees the same rights as spouses. Even with decades of shared life, the absence of formal agreements left both parties vulnerable.
Key points to take away:
- The name on the title matters. If only one person is on the deeds, they are presumed to own the whole property. The other partner must prove otherwise.
- Contributions aren’t just financial. The Court can look at the wider picture – life decisions, work, sacrifices – but these will rarely outweigh the financial input of the legal owner.
- How you give evidence matters. Judges do not just weigh up documents – they pay close attention to how witnesses present themselves. Hostile, inconsistent, or exaggerated evidence can undermine a case.
- Disputes are costly and stressful. This couple lived together for over 20 years, yet still ended up in court over whether one of them had any share at all.
- Prevention is better than cure. If you are moving in together, buying a property, or investing in your partner’s home, take advice early. A cohabitation agreement or a declaration of trust can avoid disputes later on.
The Birketts view
Hampshire v Bonser is a reminder that, without clear agreements, long-term cohabiting partners can face real uncertainty over their rights if the relationship breaks down. Even after decades of living together, the non-owning partner may walk away with little – or nothing – to show for their contributions.
It also underlines the importance of how evidence is given in court. Where parties’ accounts differ, judges may decide credibility based on demeanour and consistency as much as on paperwork. This can be decisive.
Laura Tanguay is a Partner in the Property Litigation department at Birketts and leads the firm’s Home Ownership Disputes and TOLATA practice
