Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317 is a significant case in English property law concerning the rights of unmarried cohabitants to a beneficial interest in a property. The case dealt with the principles of common intention, constructive trust, and the requirement for financial contributions to establish a proprietary interest.
The ruling in Burns v Burns highlighted the challenges faced by cohabitants who contribute in non-financial ways but are unable to claim beneficial ownership of a shared home. The case remains a cornerstone in discussions regarding the legal status of unmarried partners and the necessity for reform in cohabitation law.
Facts of Burns v Burns
The claimant, Valerie Burns, lived with the defendant, Patrick Burns, for 19 years in a long-term relationship. Although Valerie Burns adopted the defendant’s surname, the couple never married. They purchased a house together, but the property was solely registered in the name of Patrick Burns.
The defendant, Patrick Burns, paid the purchase price and met all mortgage repayments, while Valerie Burns did not make any direct financial contributions towards either the purchase or mortgage payments.
Despite this, Valerie Burns made significant indirect contributions. She managed household expenses, paid for utilities, redecorated the home, and carried out extensive domestic duties. Additionally, she raised the couple’s two children, taking responsibility for their care and upbringing while maintaining the household. Valerie Burns contended that these contributions entitled her to a beneficial interest in the property under a common intention constructive trust.
Legal Issues
The central issue in Burns v Burns was whether Valerie Burns had a beneficial interest in the property, despite the absence of a direct financial contribution to its acquisition. The case also raised important questions regarding:
- The application of constructive trusts in cohabitation disputes.
- Whether non-financial contributions, such as childcare and domestic work, could establish a beneficial interest.
- Whether a common intention to share ownership could be inferred from the parties’ conduct.
Burns v Burns Judgement
The Court of Appeal in Burns v Burns ruled against Valerie Burns and dismissed her claim. The court held that in the absence of a direct financial contribution towards the purchase price or mortgage repayments, she could not establish a beneficial interest in the property. The judgement was delivered by Lords Justice Waller, Fox, and May, who reasoned that financial contributions were necessary to establish an interest under a constructive trust.
Lord Justice Fox stated that, although Valerie Burns had lived in the property, undertaken domestic duties, and raised the couple’s children, these contributions did not indicate an intention to alter the ownership rights of the property. The judgement acknowledged that she had “worked just as hard as the man,” but emphasised that such contributions alone did not suffice to create a beneficial interest in the home.
The court reinforced the principle that, in property disputes between cohabitants, an express agreement or direct financial contribution is necessary to establish an equitable interest. Since Valerie Burns had neither, she was not entitled to any share of the property.
Conclusion
Burns v Burns remains a landmark case in English property law, demonstrating the legal challenges faced by unmarried cohabitants in claiming a beneficial interest in a shared home. The judgement established that in the absence of a financial contribution or an express agreement, non-financial contributions, such as domestic labour and child-rearing, do not grant a legal or equitable interest in a property. The case has been widely discussed in legal debates regarding the fairness of property laws for cohabiting partners, with many arguing for reform to better reflect the economic realities of modern relationships.
Despite subsequent cases such as Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott introducing a more flexible approach, the ruling in Burns v Burns remains influential. It serves as a cautionary precedent for unmarried couples, emphasising the importance of legal agreements and financial contributions in property ownership disputes. Until legislative reforms address the legal gap for cohabitants, Burns v Burns will continue to shape the way courts interpret beneficial interests in property law.
