Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317

Facts

• Valerie Burns and Patrick Burns, an unmarried couple, cohabited for nineteen years in a home registered solely in Patrick’s name.
• Patrick paid for the purchase and mortgage of the home.
• Valerie contributed to household expenses, domestic duties, child-rearing, and other non-financial aspects of family life, but made no direct financial contributions toward acquisition or mortgage payments.
• After their separation, Valerie claimed a beneficial interest in the property based on her non-financial and indirect financial contributions during the relationship.
• There was no express agreement between the parties regarding ownership shares in the property.

Issues

1. Whether Valerie Burns' non-financial or indirect financial contributions to household and family life were sufficient to establish a beneficial interest in the property under a constructive trust.
2. Whether a common intention to share beneficial ownership could be inferred absent direct financial contributions to the property's acquisition or mortgage.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal held that there was no express or tacit common intention to share beneficial ownership.
• Valerie Burns’ non-financial and indirect contributions, such as household work and raising children, did not suffice to establish a constructive trust or entitle her to a beneficial interest.
• The court determined that only direct contributions to the purchase price or mortgage payments could evidence the required common intention to share ownership at the relevant time.
• The requirement for a direct financial contribution remained the threshold for acquiring a beneficial interest in cases of sole legal title.

Legal Principles

• The establishment of a common intention constructive trust requires evidence—express or inferred—of an intention to share beneficial ownership, traditionally satisfied only by direct financial contributions to purchase or mortgage.
• Non-financial contributions, including domestic work and payment of general expenses, were not recognized as sufficient proof of a shared beneficial interest at the time of the decision.
• The case reflected the prevailing approach before later developments in Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott, which allowed a broader consideration of parties' entire conduct.

Conclusion

Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317 illustrated the strict approach of 1980s English law in requiring direct financial contributions to establish beneficial interests for cohabiting partners. The case did not recognize non-financial or indirect contributions as forming a common intention to share property, a stance since softened in later case law.