Case studies
*The names and identifying details of the clients have been changed to protect the privacy of individuals involved.
Protecting property rights in cohabitation: When one partner owns the home
*Amy sought legal advice on putting a cohabitation agreement in place after purchasing a property in her sole name three months prior. She and her partner, Jack, had been in a relationship for two years and were now living together. However, Jack had made no financial contribution towards the deposit or renovation costs of the property.
From the outset, we took the time to understand Amy’s concerns and objectives, ensuring she felt fully informed and reassured at each stage of the process. We explained that, unlike married couples, cohabiting partners have no automatic legal rights to property, and without a formal agreement, disputes could arise in the future. Without clear documentation, a court would likely assess any claims on a contribution basis, potentially requiring Amy to reimburse Jack for any mortgage payments he had made.
Amy was keen to ensure that her financial position was protected while maintaining a fair and transparent arrangement with Jack. We guided her through the process of drafting a tailored cohabitation agreement, outlining each party’s financial responsibilities and clarifying that Jack had no legal claim to the property. We explained the legal implications in plain English, so Amy could make informed decisions with confidence.
At the time, Jack was contributing towards household expenses, covering a quarter of the total running costs, including £100 towards the mortgage. However, this was on the understanding that he would not acquire any ownership rights in the property. Amy confirmed that Jack’s payments went towards general living expenses, while her own income covered the mortgage and bills. Importantly, Jack made no direct financial contribution to the property itself.
To ensure fairness and avoid future disputes, we recommended that Jack seek independent legal advice before signing the agreement. We reassured Amy that this step would add weight to the document in the event of any future challenge. Jack subsequently confirmed that he did not view the property as a joint asset and had no intention of making a claim against it. He also disclosed that he had his own savings with the aim of purchasing a separate property in the future, as well as inheritance prospects that Amy did not have—meaning that, in the long term, he was likely to have greater financial security.
As part of the agreement, we also advised Amy on how to address ownership of their pet dog. Understanding that pets can often become a source of dispute following separation, we discussed how courts typically treat them as ‘chattels’ (personal property) and consider factors such as legal ownership, financial responsibility, and day-to-day care. Given that Jack was the legal owner and had a strong family support network, Amy agreed that this should be reflected in the agreement to avoid any uncertainty in the future.
Throughout the process, we kept Amy updated at every stage, ensuring she was fully aware of her options and that the final agreement reflected her wishes. We reassured her that the agreement could be revisited if circumstances changed in the future, giving her the flexibility to adapt as needed.
For Amy, having this agreement in place provided significant reassurance. Without it, she may have reconsidered cohabitation altogether due to concerns about potential claims. By working closely with her to formalise the arrangement, we helped her secure clarity, certainty, and peace of mind for the future.
Balancing unequal financial contributions and family stability through a cohabitation agreement
John* sought legal advice after purchasing a property in London with his partner of three years, Kate. The couple had one child together and intended to expand their family in the future. While marriage was a possibility, John wanted to ensure that his financial contributions to the property were protected before making any long-term commitments.
From the outset, we took the time to understand John’s concerns and priorities. Given that the deposit for the property had been funded entirely by him—due to Kate’s previous part-time work, maternity leave, and ongoing care responsibilities—we provided clear guidance on how joint ownership would be treated in the event of separation. We explained that without a formal agreement, the courts would typically assess financial claims based on contributions, but factors such as childcare responsibilities and earning capacity would also be considered.
We advised John on the implications of marriage, particularly in light of the Matrimonial Causes Act, which prioritises ‘meeting needs’ rather than strictly adhering to financial contributions. As Kate had a lower earning capacity and was the primary caregiver for their child, she would likely have additional financial needs if they separated. Understanding this, John recognised that his financial contributions alone would not necessarily dictate the outcome of any future settlement. This led him to reflect more deeply on whether marriage was the right step for them, given the potential legal and financial consequences.
To provide certainty, we helped John and Kate structure a cohabitation agreement that clearly outlined their financial responsibilities. Under this agreement:
- Kate contributed 25% towards the mortgage, funded by benefits, while John covered the remaining 75%.
- In the event of separation, Kate would receive 25% of the equity after deducting John’s initial deposit, reflecting her contribution to the mortgage.
- If Kate returned to full-time employment and contributed more over time, they agreed to review the arrangement on a staggered basis.
- To ensure stability for their child, Kate would receive three months’ notice before vacating the property. This allowed sufficient time for financial arrangements to be made, whether through a lump sum buyout or securing rental accommodation.
During the financial disclosure process, it emerged that John owned a car in his sole name, but Kate was the primary user, using it for childcare and nursery runs. The couple was uncertain about how to handle this asset. We helped them navigate this issue by clarifying that legally ‘joint’ or ‘sole’ assets should be treated intentionally as such. Given that John had no need for the car, he agreed that it should be transferred into Kate’s name as part of the agreement, ensuring minimal disruption to their child’s routine in the event of separation.
John also raised concerns about how ongoing mortgage payments would be treated if he needed to buy Kate out. He wanted to avoid a situation where her share of the equity continued increasing while they were in the process of separating. We provided reassurance by structuring the agreement so that, at the point of separation, Kate’s entitlement would be calculated based on contributions up to that date. From that point onwards, John would take full responsibility for the mortgage payments, giving him financial certainty while allowing Kate to focus on her ability to rehouse.
Throughout the process, we ensured that John remained fully informed, guiding him through each stage of drafting and negotiation. The agreement provided him and Kate with clarity, security, and a framework for managing financial matters fairly. It also prompted meaningful discussions about the future, allowing them to consider practical issues such as child maintenance, Kate’s return to work, and long-term financial planning.
For John, this process was invaluable. Not only did it provide legal certainty, but it also encouraged a deeper and more thoughtful conversation about the future of their relationship. By addressing these matters proactively, John and Kate could make informed decisions now ensuring that, should they separate, both parties and their child would be protected.