Hampshire v Bonser: constructive trust establishes beneficial interest after 25-year cohabitation

In Hampshire v Bonser [2025] EWCC 55, HHJ Owen awarded a 15% beneficial interest in a property to a cohabitant despite the property being registered in the defendant's sole name and the claimant making minimal financial contributions. The case provides important guidance on applying Stack v Dowden principles to long-term cohabitation scenarios involving jointly-operated businesses.

Background and factual matrix

Howard Hampshire (82) and Kathleen Bonser (79) cohabited for approximately 25 years. In 2000, Bonser purchased Fron Oleu Hall in Barmouth for £180,000 using proceeds from her previous property, with title registered in her sole name. The property required extensive renovation before operating as a bed and breakfast from 2002-2005.

Hampshire resigned from employment, sold his Midlands property, and purchased nearby Hafod Wen. He subsequently worked for a year managing a hotel in Aberdyfi to learn hospitality skills. In 2002, the parties jointly purchased an adjacent property, Cae Glas, requiring Hampshire to sell Hafod Wen. Cae Glas was later sold in 2014 with proceeds split equally.

Throughout their relationship, the parties maintained a joint account for household expenses, with Hampshire contributing £650 monthly and Bonser £600. The relationship ended in December 2023 when Hampshire was asked to leave Bonser's daughter's property following Bonser's stroke.

Legal analysis and application of Stack v Dowden

The court applied the established Stack v Dowden framework, acknowledging that where property is registered in sole name, there is a strong presumption of sole beneficial ownership. The claimant must prove both common intention to share beneficial ownership and detrimental reliance on that intention.

HHJ Owen distinguished this case from Geary v Rankine, where mere cohabitation and business assistance were insufficient to establish beneficial interest. Key differentiating factors included:

• Hampshire's proactive involvement in planning the guest house venture from inception
• His resignation from permanent employment and acquisition of hospitality skills specifically for the business
• Sale of his own property to enable joint purchase of Cae Glas, effectively removing himself from the property ladder
• Substantial non-financial contributions including renovation work, business operations, and ongoing maintenance

Inference of common intention

The court found common intention could be inferred from the parties' conduct over 25 years. Critical evidence included Hampshire's decision to sell Hafod Wen only two years after purchase to enable joint acquisition of Cae Glas, ostensibly for future cohabitation and to improve Fron Oleu's amenities.

The judge rejected Bonser's hostile testimony, finding her evidence "tainted by her current hostility" and preferring Hampshire's account of their relationship as committed and quasi-marital. The court emphasised that Bonser's tolerance of Hampshire leaving the property ladder implied an understanding of his beneficial interest.

Detrimental reliance

Hampshire successfully demonstrated sufficient detrimental reliance by:

• Abandoning his established life in the Midlands
• Selling Hafod Wen prematurely to facilitate joint property purchase
• Permanently leaving the property ladder at age 59 without alternative accommodation arrangements
• Contributing £1,300 lottery winnings toward property decoration
• Providing ongoing maintenance and business support

Assessment of beneficial share

The court awarded a 15% share (£125,773.80 from net proceeds of £838,492), balancing Bonser's substantially greater financial contributions against Hampshire's significant in-kind contributions over the relationship's duration. This percentage ensures Hampshire can secure modest accommodation whilst preserving Bonser's ability to retain her current property.

The judgement demonstrates that whilst financial contributions remain paramount in beneficial interest claims, substantial non-financial contributions combined with clear detrimental reliance can establish constructive trust even where legal title is held solely. The decision reinforces that each case turns on its specific facts, with the court examining the entirety of the parties' conduct and relationship dynamics rather than applying rigid formulae.