Mark Day, partner and family law solicitor at Langleys said: “The outcome of this case is a big step forward in reforming the law for cohabitees. Until today the presumption was that a cohabiting couple who owned a house in joint names had an equal share. However, this presumption can be rebutted by evidence that it was not or ceased to be the common intention of the parties.
“The Court has gone even further now and said that in the absence of clear intentions the Court is entitled to impute an intention which the Court considers fair having regard to the whole course of dealings between them in the relation to the property.
“It might be possible for lawyers to argue that the facts of this case, whilst not being unique, are quite unusual and can be distinguished from other cases and therefore not followed. The Court has not limited their opinion to the facts of this case and have said that each case should be dealt with on its own facts and whilst financial contributions are relevant there are many other factors which may enable the Court to decide what shares were either intended or fair.
“Cohabitees who were not named on the title to property have always been able to argue that a trust exists in their favour and ask the Court to infer intentions from they way they organised their finances and their conduct. However, the suggestion that their intentions can be imputed in the absence of evidence of their intentions is a step forward for them too.”