Burns v Burns
A woman who lived with her partner for nearly 20 years, raising their children and running the home, but who made no contribution to the purchase, had no beneficial interest in the house.
Facts
Mrs Burns lived with Mr Burns for about 19 years, although they never married. Mr Burns bought the house in his sole name and paid the mortgage. Mrs Burns brought up their two children and looked after the home. Later she began to earn money, which she spent on household expenses, furnishing the house and some redecoration, but she did not contribute to the purchase price or the mortgage. When they separated, she claimed a share in the house.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Burns had no beneficial interest. Fox LJ said that the court cannot impute an intention that the parties never had, and that her contributions were not referable to the acquisition of the house. May LJ said that, while her position was a deserving one, the court could not decide property rights on the basis of what it thought fair, and any change in the law for unmarried couples was a matter for Parliament. The case is often cited to show the difficulties faced by cohabitants under the law of trusts.
Related cases on trusts of the family home
- Abbott v Abbott [2007] UKPC 53
- Capehorn v Harris [2015] EWCA Civ 955
- Curran v Collins [2015] EWCA Civ 404
- Eves v Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1338
- Fowler v Barron [2008] EWCA Civ 377
- Geary v Rankine [2012] EWCA Civ 555
- Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886
- Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
