Dobson v Griffey

In a dispute between unmarried cohabitants, property rights are determined by property law rather than by a broad discretion to redistribute assets after relationship breakdown. A common intention constructive trust requires an actual common intention to share beneficial ownership, whether expressed or inferred from the parties’ conduct, followed by detrimental reliance. The court may not impute an intention merely because sharing would appear fair or reasonable. Proprietary estoppel likewise requires an assurance or expectation attributable to the property owner, reliance, detriment and unconscionability. Work done in the context of a domestic relationship does not, without more, prove reliance on a proprietary agreement. Where the parties did not quantify a share, the court may determine what is fair only after a beneficial entitlement has been established.

The claimant and defendant were former cohabitants. The defendant bought Ballhill Farm in his sole name and alone borrowed the mortgage funds. During the relationship the claimant contributed substantial labour to renovation works, operated a livery business and helped run a holiday let. After the relationship ended, the farm was sold.

The claimant sought a share of the sale proceeds, relying principally on an alleged agreement to share profits or beneficial ownership, alternatively on an expectation that she could live at the farm for life. The defendant denied any agreement and contended that the claimant’s work arose from their domestic relationship. The central issues were whether a common intention, proprietary assurance or relevant expectation had been established, and whether the claimant had relied on it to her detriment.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant had not proved an agreement or other legally sufficient basis for a beneficial interest in the farm.
2. Because the parties were unmarried, the court’s family-law power to redistribute assets did not apply. The dispute had to be decided by established property-law principles. Conduct during a relationship was relevant only so far as it illuminated consent, intention, reliance or another recognised basis for acquiring property rights.
3. For a common intention constructive trust, the claimant had to establish an actual common intention to share beneficial ownership and detrimental reliance on it. The intention could be express or inferred objectively from the whole course of dealing, but could not be imputed by reference to fairness or reasonableness. The claimant’s substantial renovation work did not establish the required intention or reliance.
4. Proprietary estoppel required an assurance or expectation created by the defendant’s words or conduct, reliance, detriment and unconscionability. The claimant’s expectation of remaining at the farm arose from her own belief in the parties’ future together, not from an assurance by the defendant.
5. The court treated the claimant’s work as naturally explicable by the domestic relationship and the shared home. It did not necessarily indicate a quasi-commercial bargain or reliance on an interest in land. The absence of a proved common intention meant that the question of detrimental reliance did not arise, although the judge considered it and found it unproved in any event.
6. Had an enforceable promise to share sale profits been established, the appropriate award would in principle have reflected that promise. Had a promise of lifetime occupation been established but rendered impossible by the sale, a reliance-based award would have been considered. Those observations were unnecessary to the decision.