Property division for unmarried couple

Cox v Jones [2004] EWHC 1486 (Ch)

This was a dispute between two barristers who became engaged in 1998 and whose relationship ended in May 2001. In 1999, after extensive searching by the woman, a country property was purchased in the sole name of the man. The woman spent considerable time on planning and supervising renovations and improvements, to the detriment of her practice. At about the same time the woman wished to purchase a flat above her own property in London but when she was unable to raise the money it was bought in the man’s sole name with the assistance of a mortgage. Each of the parties paid half of the deposit, the woman dealt with all of the lettings of the flat. In the proceedings, the woman claimed to have a beneficial interest in the flat and the country property, while the man claimed the return of the engagement ring under s3(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970. The Court awarded the woman 100% of the flat on the basis that the man purchased it for her as her nominee and not in his own right. Not only did she suffer detriment in assuming responsibility for the running of the flat, she did not pursue her own attempts to acquire another flat. The man held the flat on constructive trust for the woman absolutely. There was an express arrangement between the parties that the country property should be owned jointly, although no express agreement as to the extent of the parties’ respective beneficial interests. The broad approach to quantification of beneficial interests is based on the whole course of dealing between the parties in relation to the property in the absence of an actual agreement as to quantification and, after considering the contributions of both parties, the judge awarded the woman 25% of the equity. The man did not get the engagement ring back. Section 3(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970 provides: ‘The gift of an engagement ring shall be presumed to be an absolute gift; this presumption may be rebutted by proving that the ring was given on the condition, express or implied, that it should be returned if the marriage did not take place for any reason.’ The man had not established such a condition.