When a property is held in the sole name of one person, disputes can arise if another individual – such as a former partner – claims that they also have a financial interest in it.

Such claims are brought under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA). Commonly, the claimant alleges that a common intention constructive trust exists and that they are entitled to a share of the property as a result.

Our TOLATA specialists advise clients in these complex disputes – whether you are seeking to assert a beneficial interest or defending a claim against your property.

Common situations

This type of claim frequently arises where:

a couple live together in a property owned in one person’s name
the non-owning partner contributes towards the purchase price, mortgage, renovation costs or other household expenses
one party was promised a share in the property but their name was never added to the title.

These situations are particularly common following the breakdown of cohabiting relationships. The non-owning partner may feel that they contributed financially or otherwise to the acquisition, improvement or maintenance of the property, and that it would be unfair for the legal owner to retain all of the benefit.

Conversely, the legal owner may dispute that any such understanding ever existed or that the other person made any contributions sufficient to justify a beneficial interest.

How the court decides whether an interest exists

The court will consider the parties’ intentions – whether expressly discussed by them or else inferred from their conduct.

A common intention constructive trust can arise if:

there was a shared intention that both parties would have an interest in the property
the non-owning party relied on that intention to their detriment (for example, by contributing money, labour or giving up other opportunities).

The court will consider all relevant evidence, including:

the reasons why the property was purchased in one person’s sole name
financial contributions towards the purchase price, mortgage or improvements
discussions or assurances about ownership
how the parties arranged their finances.

These cases are fact-specific and can be highly nuanced, requiring careful presentation of evidence and legal argument.

How Birketts can help

Our TOLATA specialists provide clear and pragmatic advice in disputes involving solely owned property. We can:

assess the strength of your position and the evidence available
advise you on whether a beneficial interest is likely to be recognised
seek to negotiate or mediate an early resolution where possible
represent you robustly in any court proceedings.

We act for both claimants seeking to establish an interest and defendants resisting such claims, ensuring that your position is advanced strategically and cost-effectively.

Our experience

Acting for a client in setting aside fraudulent declarations of trust prepared by their ex-partner, which falsely claimed a 50% share in their property. We successfully overturned the documents at trial, with the assistance of a handwriting expert, and secured full indemnity costs for the client.
Acting for a client asserting a beneficial interest in their ex-partner’s property, following our client’s financial contributions to it. We secured a restriction on the Land Registry title to protect the client’s claim – overcoming objections – and achieved a favourable resolution at the First-tier Property Tribunal, with our client receiving a substantial lump sum payment.
Representing a client asserting a beneficial interest in their ex-husband’s brother’s property, relying on direct and indirect contributions that she made to the property. Following the legal owner’s bankruptcy, we achieved a settlement with the legal owner’s trustee in bankruptcy, allowing our client to obtain a transfer of the property into her sole name. We also reached a settlement with the lender, who had been attempting to repossess and sell the property because of mortgage arrears.
Acting for a client defending a claim against his property following a 30-year unmarried relationship. There was limited evidence of financial mingling of assets, however the parties had children together and the ex-partner was asserting that promises had been made that the family home was “their joint home”. We settled the case at mediation with a modest payment to the ex-partner.