There are certain misconceptions about English law in relation to co-habitation disputes. It is not like marriage and divorce where different law applies and nor should you treat it in the same way as you might if you were business partners buying a property together.

What this means in practice is that the answer to the key question, “Is the property jointly owned and if so, in what shares?” is not to be found merely in respective financial contributions. Nor is it that a husband and wife own everything equally.

The approach the court takes is to ask, “What was the common intention of the parties at the time the property was bought?” The starting point where both names are on the deeds and both are liable under the mortgage is that it is jointly owned in equal shares and it is not easy to overturn this presumption.

That being said, it can be overturned. However, you must have evidence to show that equal shares were not intended.

Financial contributions may be evidence of a common intention not to share equally (or share equally) but they are not the starting point and the court will usually only go on to apply a financial contribution approach as a fall-back.

It is not always about saying what is “fair” now, but what was intended then. So be under no illusions: if your partner is on the deeds but has made no real contributions you may have to bring proceedings to demonstrate you own a larger share and if you are not on the deeds but made financial contributions, likewise, you will have to drive the litigation.

Relevant cases: Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.