Not on the title deeds? You may still have a claim to the property

One of the most common assumptions we see from clients is that property ownership is determined strictly by the title register.

In practice, particularly for unmarried couples, that assumption often leads to disputes, specifically TOLATA disputes.

As relationship breakdowns increase and property values remain high, claims under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (“TOLATA”) are becoming a key risk area.

These claims are highly fact-sensitive, often retrospective and frequently driven by informal arrangements that were never properly documented.

The commercial reality is straightforward. If a TOLATA dispute arises, the Court will not simply ask who owns the property on paper. It will carry out a fact-based assessment of what was intended and whether it would be fair to depart from the legal position.

Hampshire v Bonser [2025] EWCC 55

The case of Hampshire v Bonser [2025] is a useful example of how these claims are approached in practice.

The facts are typical of many disputes that arise following long-term cohabitation.

The parties were in a relationship for approximately 25 years. The property, a former guesthouse, was purchased in the Defendant’s sole name using the proceeds of her previous property. On the face of it, she was both the legal and beneficial owner.

The Claimant had not contributed to the purchase price. Instead, his case focused on his role during the relationship. He argued that he:

• Carried out renovation and maintenance works to the property
• Worked within and contributed to the guesthouse business
• Had been involved in a neighbouring joint property venture
• Remained involved in the upkeep of the property over a prolonged period

His position was that this conduct reflected a shared understanding that he would have “a stake” in the property.

The Defendant maintained that there was no such agreement. She had funded the purchase and there was no basis for any departure from the legal title.

The Court approached the issue in line with established principles. It did not treat the title as determinative. Instead, it considered whether there was:

• A common intention to share co-ownership; and
• Reliance on that intention giving rise to detriment

In doing so, the Court assessed the relationship in the round, including both financial and non-financial contributions and the way the property had been used over time.

Key points from the judgment

The decision reinforces a number of practical themes:

• Legal ownership is only the starting point
• A Claimant can advance a claim without any contribution to the purchase price
• Common intention can be inferred from conduct
• The Court will consider the full course of the relationship
• Non-financial contributions may be relevant
• Reliance and detriment remain central

The significance of the case lies less in any new principle and more in how those principles are applied in a factual, domestic context.

The legal test

For unmarried couples, there is no statutory mechanism governing the division of property. Instead, claims are determined through equitable principles, most commonly by establishing a common intention constructive trust.

Common intention: the central battleground

In most TOLATA disputes, the key issue is whether the Court can identify a common intention to share ownership.

That intention can arise in two ways. It may be based on actual discussions between the parties, for example an agreement that the property is “ours”. More often, it is inferred from conduct.

The Court will take a holistic approach and consider everything from verbal conversations, WhatsApp messages to the overarching organisation of the finances and relationship. It will consider how the property was used and whether the Claimant’s conduct is consistent with an expectation of ownership.

Importantly, the Court will distinguish between informal discussions within a relationship and genuine agreements intended to have legal effect. Not every conversation about “sharing” will cross that threshold. The Court is concerned with identifying a real shared understanding, not simply attributing legal effect to domestic arrangements after the event.

Reliance and detriment

Even if a common intention can be established, the claim will usually fail without reliance.

This is often where the evidential focus shifts. The Claimant must show that they acted differently because of the shared understanding.

That reliance can take many forms. Financial contributions to improvements or mortgage payments are the most obvious examples, but they are not the only ones. Courts regularly consider:

• Significant labour or works carried out on the property
• Contribution to a business linked to the property
• Decisions to give up alternative accommodation or opportunities

In Hampshire v Bonser, the Claimant’s involvement in renovations and the guesthouse business formed part of that broader evidential picture.

There is no single decisive factor. The Court will assess the position in the round, weighing all of the evidence before reaching a conclusion.

Key considerations in TOLATA disputes

The key message is that not being on the title does not prevent a claim and equally, being on the title does not guarantee the outcome.

These disputes turn on intention, conduct and evidence. That makes them fact-heavy, often unpredictable and in many cases, capable of becoming contentious quickly once positions are taken.

If you are living in a property held in your partner’s sole name, dealing with a separation, or facing potential a TOLATA dispute, early advice is critical. A clear view on the strength of any alleged common intention and the evidence available will shape both your legal position and your strategy for resolving the dispute.

In many cases, the earlier that legal position is understood, the better placed you are to build the evidence of your ownership. The more leverage you have to find a resolution earlier, the more you can reduce costs and risk.

How Morr & Co can help?

Whether you are living in a property owned solely by your partner, are going through a separation, are involved in a potential TOLATA dispute, or would like advice at an early stage, please contact our Dispute Resolution team directly, email info@morrlaw.com or call us on 0333 038 9100 and one of our team will be happy to assist.

Disclaimer
Although correct at the time of publication, the contents of this newsletter/blog are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute, legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article. Please contact us for the latest legal position.