Burns v Burns ([1984] EWCA Civ 4) is a case in English property law dealing with the beneficial entitlements of unmarried cohabittees.
Facts
editThe plaintiff, Valerie Burns, lived with the defendant for 19 years, Patrick Burns, whom she never married. The house had been bought in the name of the defendant who also paid the purchase price with the plaintiff making no financial contributions to the purchase price or mortgage installments and had acted as a homemaker performing domestic duties.[1] She had however made financial contributions to the household with regards to household bills and redecorating.
Judgment
editThe judgment of the case was that in the absence of a financial contribution which could be related to the acquisition to the property such as mortgage installments there is no right to a beneficial entitlement to a family home. This decision was affirmed by the Lords Justice Waller, Fox and May in the Court of Appeal.[1]
It has been widely discussed in the debate over the fairness of the law as it applies to cohabitants.[2][3][4]
Notes
edit- ^ a b Burns v Burns [1983] EWCA Civ 4, [1984] Ch 317, [1984] 2 WLR 582, [1984] 1 All ER 244 (26 July 1983)
- ^ Douglas, Gillian; Pearce, Julia; Woodward, Hilary (2009). "Cohabitants, Property and the Law: A Study of Injustice". The Modern Law Review. 72 (1): 24–47. ISSN 0026-7961.
- ^ Barlow, Anne; James, Grace (2004). "Regulating Marriage and Cohabitation in 21st Century Britain". The Modern Law Review. 67 (2): 143–176. ISSN 0026-7961.
- ^ Gardner, Simon (2013). "Problems in Family Property". The Cambridge Law Journal. 72 (2): 301–312. ISSN 0008-1973.
 | This case law article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |