Burns v Burns

Ratio Decidendi

ข้อเท็จจริง

Mrs Burns (as she was known) lived with Mr Burns for 17 years, raising their children and contributing to household expenses. The house was in Mr Burns' sole name and she made no direct financial contributions to its purchase or mortgage. When the relationship ended, she claimed a beneficial interest.

สรุปคำพิพากษา

The Court of Appeal held that Valerie Burns had no beneficial interest in the home, which was in the sole name of Patrick Burns, who had provided the purchase price and paid the mortgage. Despite the couple living together for about nineteen years, bringing up their two children, and her contributing through housekeeping, some bills, and domestic work, she had made no direct financial contribution to the acquisition of the property, and there was no evidence of any express or inferred common intention that she should share in its ownership. Fox and May LJJ held that, on the law as it stood, neither a resulting trust (which depends on a contribution to the purchase) nor a constructive trust (which depends on a common intention acted upon to the claimant's detriment) could be established on these facts; domestic contributions and indirect payments were not enough. The case is the classic illustration of the harsh position of the non-owning, financially non-contributing cohabitant, and is repeatedly cited in calls for legislative reform of cohabitants' property rights.

คำกล่าวสำคัญ

การอ้างอิงภายหลัง