The common intention constructive trust (CICT) occupies an uneasy position in English property law. Conceived to ameliorate the harshness of strict legal title in the domestic context, it has, since Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, evolved into a doctrine that purports to do “justice between the parties” (Jones [51]) while remaining tethered to the conceptual scaffolding of intention. This essay argues that the CICT no longer provides fair protection for cohabiting partners in the family home, and that its inadequacy is structural rather than merely incidental. The unfairness operates on three levels: doctrinal incoherence between the rhetoric of intention and the reality of judicial imputation; evidential asymmetry that systematically disadvantages the economically weaker partner, typically women with caring responsibilities; and institutional inadequacy, in that the doctrine is being asked to perform a redistributive function it was never designed to bear. The corrective is not further doctrinal refinement, which over four decades has produced diminishing returns, but legislative intervention along the lines proposed by the Law Commission in 2007 and recently revived in the Women and Equalities Committee Report of 2022. Until Parliament acts, the CICT will continue to deliver outcomes whose fairness is contingent, opaque, and unevenly distributed.
This argument proceeds in five stages. First, it identifies the evaluative standard of “fair protection” by reference to the doctrinal and policy aims the courts and Law Commission have articulated. Secondly, it traces the doctrinal trajectory from Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1990] UKHL 14 to Jones v Kernott, showing how the intention requirement has become increasingly fictional. Thirdly, it analyses the practical operation of the doctrine in sole-name and joint-name cases, demonstrating that the evidential burden in sole-name disputes remains punishing. Fourthly, it engages with the principal academic responses, both those defending the modern law and those calling for reform. Finally, it considers whether reform should come from the judiciary or Parliament, concluding that the limits of legitimate judicial development have been reached.
What does “fair protection” require in the cohabitation context?
The question presupposes a standard of fairness against which the doctrine can be tested. Three candidate standards emerge from the case law and reform literature, and each yields a different verdict.
The first is the standard of respecting party autonomy: fair protection means giving effect to what the parties actually agreed or intended. This is the explicit rationale of Rosset and the formal rationale of Stack and Jones. On this view, the CICT is fair if and only if it accurately reconstructs the parties’ shared intentions about beneficial ownership. The difficulty is that empirical research consistently demonstrates that cohabiting couples rarely form, let alone articulate, intentions about beneficial entitlement (Douglas, Pearce and Woodward, 2009). The standard of autonomy is thus largely fictional in this domain.
The second is the standard of contribution-based desert: fair protection means awarding shares that reflect what each party has contributed, financially or otherwise, to the acquisition and maintenance of the home. This standard has long been rejected as the basis of English law: in Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317, Fox LJ refused to treat indirect non-financial contributions as generating a beneficial interest, and Lord Bridge in Rosset reinforced that position. Yet the standard re-emerges in disguised form through the “whole course of dealing” inquiry endorsed in Stack [69] and Jones [51].
The third is the standard of relational justice: fair protection means recognising the interdependent nature of the cohabiting relationship and ensuring that economic sacrifices made for the benefit of the partnership do not result in disproportionate loss when it ends. This is the standard underpinning the Law Commission’s 2007 Report, Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown (Law Com No 307), and broadly approximates the regime applicable to married couples under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
The CICT cannot satisfy all three. It claims to operate by reference to the first, but in practice, particularly post-Jones, gestures towards the third while denying that it is doing so. This methodological dissonance is the root of the doctrine’s unfairness: it produces outcomes that look like discretionary redistribution but are presented as findings of intention, depriving cohabitants of both the predictability of a contribution-based regime and the principled redistribution of a statutory scheme. The appropriate evaluative standard, this essay contends, is relational justice, because it is the only standard that takes seriously what cohabitation actually is.
From Rosset to Jones: the slow death of intention
The modern doctrine begins with Lord Bridge’s two-limb framework in Rosset. A beneficial interest could arise either from an express agreement followed by detrimental reliance, or from direct financial contributions to the purchase price, from which agreement would be inferred. Indirect contributions, however substantial, would not suffice. The decision was widely criticised for its narrowness, particularly its disregard of the gendered reality of household economies (Gardner, 1993; Lawson, 1996).
The House of Lords in Stack v Dowden attempted to soften this framework, though only for joint-name cases. Baroness Hale held that where a domestic property is conveyed into joint names without an express declaration, equity follows the law and the parties are presumed to hold beneficially in equal shares. That presumption can be displaced, but only by showing a different common intention, and “the search is to ascertain the parties’ shared intentions, actual, inferred or imputed, with respect to the property in the light of their whole course of conduct in relation to it” ([60]). Lord Neuberger dissented on a critical point: he accepted that intentions could be actual or inferred, but rejected the legitimacy of imputation, which he regarded as judicial invention masquerading as fact-finding ([125]–[127]).
That dissent was vindicated as a matter of intellectual honesty, even as it was rejected as a matter of law. In Jones v Kernott, the Supreme Court confirmed that where the court cannot ascertain an actual or inferred intention as to quantification, it may impute one, asking what would be “fair having regard to the whole course of dealing between [the parties] in relation to the property” ([47], citing Oxley v Hiscock [2004] EWCA Civ 546). The judgment attempted to maintain the conceptual distinction between inference (a finding about what the parties actually intended) and imputation (an attribution of an intention they may never have held), but conceded that in practice the line was fine ([34]).
The doctrinal trajectory thus runs as follows. Rosset insisted on intention, narrowly evidenced by financial contribution. Stack retained the rhetoric of intention but widened the evidential base to encompass the whole course of dealing. Jones formally licensed imputation, while continuing to describe the exercise as a search for intention. The result is a doctrine in which the courts purport to discover what the parties intended but are in fact performing a discretionary fairness inquiry. As Sir Terence Etherton observed extrajudicially, the modern CICT operates as “remedial in everything but name” (Etherton, 2008).
This matters for the fairness inquiry because the rhetoric of intention conceals what is actually happening, and concealment is itself a form of unfairness. Parties cannot order their affairs in light of a doctrine whose operative criteria are not stated. Practitioners cannot advise with confidence. Trial judges, told that they are finding facts when they are exercising discretion, produce inconsistent outcomes. The Court of Appeal in Capehorn v Harris [2015] EWCA Civ 955 attempted to reassert structure by holding that imputation is only available at the quantification stage, not the acquisition stage, but this merely relocates the problem rather than resolving it.
The sole-name case: where unfairness is most acute
The unfairness of the CICT is most visible in sole-name cases. Where property is conveyed into one party’s name only, the claimant bears the burden of establishing both that a beneficial interest was intended (the acquisition stage) and what its quantum should be (the quantification stage). At the acquisition stage, Rosset‘s framework continues to apply, albeit with some loosening at the edges. The claimant must either prove an express agreement followed by detrimental reliance, or rely on direct financial contributions from which agreement can be inferred.
The first route depends on what was said. Courts have shown willingness to draw inferences from “excuses” given by the legal owner for not putting the property into joint names, as in Eves v Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1338 and Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638. But this is a thin reed. It depends on the claimant being able to recall and prove specific conversations, often years after the fact, in circumstances where the parties’ interests are now diametrically opposed. The recent decision in Hudson v Hathway [2022] EWCA Civ 1648 illustrates that express agreements remain decisive where they can be established, but most claimants cannot establish them.
The second route is even more restrictive. Rosset‘s requirement of direct financial contribution excludes the most common forms of contribution in cohabiting relationships: childcare, household labour, and indirect financial support such as payment of household bills enabling the legal owner to service the mortgage. The decision in Burns v Burns, in which a woman who had spent nineteen years raising the parties’ children and maintaining the home was held to have no beneficial interest, remains good law. The Court of Appeal in Curran v Collins [2015] EWCA Civ 404 reaffirmed that the Rosset threshold remains intact for sole-name cases, with Arden LJ noting that Stack had not displaced it ([66]–[68]).
The gendered consequences are plain. Empirical work by Douglas, Pearce and Woodward (2009), and earlier by Wong (1998), demonstrates that the financial contributions route systematically privileges the partner whose role in the relationship more closely resembles that of a participant in the formal market economy. Where one partner sacrifices earning capacity to assume caring responsibilities, that sacrifice is treated as legally invisible. Auchmuty (2016) has argued forcefully that this constitutes a form of structural discrimination, in which a facially neutral doctrine produces systematically gendered outcomes.
The defenders of the current law respond that this is the price of respecting party autonomy: cohabitants who want joint ownership can put the property into joint names, and those who do not should not have ownership imposed upon them by judicial fiat (Mee, 2007). The response has surface plausibility but collapses on closer examination. It assumes a degree of legal awareness and bargaining equality that cohabiting couples rarely possess. The Living Together Campaign research and subsequent surveys repeatedly demonstrate that a substantial proportion of cohabitants believe in the “common law marriage” myth and assume that long cohabitation generates legal rights (Barlow et al, 2008). Autonomy-based justifications presuppose informed consent; they cannot defend outcomes produced by widespread legal ignorance.
Moreover, the autonomy argument cuts both ways. If cohabitants who do not put property into joint names are presumed to have intended sole ownership, they are equally presumed to have intended the absence of any sharing of the economic consequences of the relationship. That presumption is implausible where the parties have been together for decades, raised children together, and treated their finances as common. The autonomy argument respects only one dimension of autonomy, the formal choice of legal title, while ignoring the substantive autonomy that would be required to make that choice meaningful.
The joint-name case: improvement, but not solution
Joint-name cases are easier for claimants and more flexible for courts. The Stack presumption of equal beneficial ownership provides a sensible starting point, and the burden of displacing it lies on the party arguing for unequal shares. Lady Hale’s observation that “cases in which the joint legal owners are to be taken to have intended that their beneficial interests should be different from their legal interests will be very unusual” ([69]) was intended to bring stability.
In practice, however, Stack itself was such a case. The parties had kept their finances rigorously separate, and the Lords held that Ms Dowden was entitled to 65 per cent. The decision is difficult to reconcile with the rhetoric of presumption: if a case as unusual as Stack on its facts (a nineteen-year relationship producing four children) justifies departure from equality, the “very unusual” qualification carries little work. Fowler v Barron [2008] EWCA Civ 377, by contrast, held that the equal-shares presumption was not displaced where the parties had pooled their resources, even though one party had made larger financial contributions. The two cases reveal a doctrine that is fact-sensitive in ways that are difficult to predict ex ante.
The quantification exercise in joint-name cases also illustrates the practical operation of imputation. In Jones v Kernott itself, the Supreme Court upheld a 90:10 split in favour of Ms Jones, on the basis that after Mr Kernott left and stopped contributing, the parties’ intentions had changed. The court conceded that this conclusion rested on imputation rather than inference ([48]–[49]). The outcome is defensible, perhaps even just, on the facts. But it is just because Lord Walker and Lady Hale say it is just, not because it follows from any identifiable principle. As Gardner and Davidson (2012) observe, the “whole course of dealing” test invites the court to act as a court of conscience without supplying the criteria of conscience.
The asymmetry between joint-name and sole-name cases is itself a source of unfairness. Two relationships identical in every economically relevant respect can produce radically different outcomes depending solely on the choice of legal title, a choice often made for reasons of mortgage convenience or family tradition rather than as a considered allocation of beneficial entitlement. The doctrine thus places enormous weight on a formality that the parties may have treated as administrative.
The proprietary estoppel alternative and its limits
Cohabitants denied a remedy under the CICT may sometimes succeed in proprietary estoppel, as in Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18 (though that was a familial farming case rather than a cohabitation case) and more directly in Southwell v Blackburn [2014] EWCA Civ 1347. The Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27, while another farming case, has refined the remedial principles in ways that are likely to affect cohabitation disputes.
Proprietary estoppel might appear to offer a more flexible alternative. It requires an assurance, reliance, and detriment, and the remedy is discretionary. However, three difficulties prevent it from filling the gap left by the CICT. First, the assurance must relate to a specific property or class of property, which limits its application where the parties have not focused on property at all. Secondly, the remedy is typically the minimum necessary to satisfy the equity (Jennings v Rice [2002] EWCA Civ 159), which may be considerably less than a proportionate share of the home. Thirdly, the recent decision in Guest v Guest, in which the majority held that the starting point is to give effect to the expectation but the court may modify the remedy where doing so would be disproportionate, has reintroduced uncertainty at the remedial stage that the lower courts had begun to dispel.
The relationship between CICT and proprietary estoppel remains conceptually unsettled. Stack blurred the distinction, with Lord Walker observing that the two doctrines “have much in common” ([37]), while Jones reasserted some separation. In practice, claimants frequently plead both in the alternative, and judges navigate between them according to which doctrine offers the more comfortable fit on the facts. The doctrinal proliferation does not enhance fairness; it merely multiplies the routes to a discretionary outcome.
The scholarly debate: defence, refinement, or replacement?
The academic literature on the CICT can be grouped into three broad positions.
The first defends the modern law as a workable accommodation of competing values. Dixon (2012) argues that the post-Jones framework, while imperfect, provides sufficient flexibility for courts to reach just outcomes without abandoning the property-law principle that beneficial ownership requires some justifying foundation. On this view, the doctrine is not unfair; it is appropriately structured to balance certainty against discretion, and the perceived problems are problems of application rather than principle.
The second seeks doctrinal refinement. Gardner and Davidson (2012) propose recasting the doctrine in terms of a “materially communal” relationship, in which the parties’ shared economic life generates a presumption of shared ownership that can then be quantified by reference to fairness criteria. This proposal has the merit of confronting honestly what the doctrine is doing, but it requires the courts to develop criteria for “material communality” that they have so far avoided articulating. Mee (1999, 2007) takes a more sceptical view, arguing that the doctrine has lost its conceptual moorings and should be returned to a strict intention-based framework, with the redistributive function left to statute.
The third calls for replacement. Probert (2007), Auchmuty (2016), and Bottomley (2006) argue that no doctrinal refinement can solve the underlying problem, because the problem is that property law is the wrong tool for the job. Cohabitation is a relational status, not a series of property transactions, and only a statutory regime modelled on relationship breakdown rather than property entitlement can deliver fair outcomes. This position aligns with the Law Commission’s 2007 recommendations and with the comparative experience of jurisdictions such as Scotland (Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006, Part 4), Ireland (Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010), Australia (Family Law Act 1975, as amended), and New Zealand (Property (Relationships) Act 1976).
The strongest argument is the third. The first position underestimates the structural disadvantage produced by the doctrine in sole-name cases and overestimates the predictive power of the modern framework. The second position, while intellectually attractive, asks the courts to do something they have repeatedly indicated they cannot do without legislative authorisation. In Stack itself, Lord Walker observed that “the law has moved on” ([26]), but in Jones Lord Walker and Lady Hale conceded that “[t]he law has indeed moved on in response to changing social and economic conditions. The search is to ascertain the parties’ actual shared intentions” ([46]). The judicial signals are mixed precisely because the courts recognise that further development pushes against the limits of legitimate judicial law-making.
The institutional question: courts or Parliament?
The CICT’s deficiencies are by now well understood. The question is who should remedy them. Three institutional considerations point firmly towards Parliament.
First, the redistributive function the CICT is being asked to perform is paradigmatically legislative. It involves balancing autonomy against welfare, recognising relational obligations between adults who have chosen not to formalise their relationship, and determining the appropriate triggers and qualifying criteria for legal intervention. These are quintessentially political judgements. The Law Commission’s 2007 proposals, requiring a qualifying period of cohabitation or the presence of children, exemplify the kinds of policy choices that should not be made by courts under cover of doctrinal development.
Secondly, the courts have themselves repeatedly signalled the limits of judicial reform. In Burns v Burns, May LJ observed that the position of long-term cohabitants who had made non-financial contributions called for “Parliamentary intervention” ([345]). Three decades later, in Gow v Grant [2012] UKSC 29, Lord Hope (commenting on the Scottish provisions) expressly invited the consideration of similar legislation for England and Wales ([56]). The judiciary’s recognition that the problem is legislative is itself an authoritative institutional judgement.
Thirdly, the comparative experience demonstrates that statutory regimes can be designed to respect autonomy, provide certainty, and ensure relational justice. The Scottish regime under sections 25 to 29 of the 2006 Act provides limited rights to cohabitants on separation or death, balanced against opt-out provisions. The Irish 2010 Act provides a redress scheme for “qualified cohabitants”. Neither system has produced the disasters predicted by opponents, and the Scottish provisions were the subject of a positive review in Gow v Grant. The Women and Equalities Committee’s 2022 Report, The rights of cohabiting partners (HC 92), recommended an opt-out statutory scheme, but the Government’s response in November 2022 declined to legislate pending the conclusion of the Law Commission’s work on financial remedies on divorce, a position that has rightly been criticised as unduly delaying overdue reform.
The persistent failure to legislate is not a reason to expand the CICT beyond its principled limits; it is a reason to keep pressing for legislation. Judicial reform within the CICT framework has reached, and arguably exceeded, the point of diminishing returns. Every additional refinement to the doctrine increases its complexity without addressing its core inadequacy.
Is the modern doctrine at least fairer than it was?
It would be unfair to the doctrine to deny that the post-Stack/Jones framework is in some respects an improvement on Rosset. In joint-name cases, the equal-shares presumption provides a sensible default that protects the partner who would otherwise face an evidential burden. The willingness to consider the whole course of dealing in quantification, however unprincipled, at least permits courts to reach outcomes that approximate substantive justice in many cases. The development of the doctrine demonstrates judicial responsiveness to the inadequacy of Rosset‘s narrow framework.
Three qualifications, however, prevent this acknowledgment from rescuing the doctrine.
First, the improvement is confined to joint-name cases. The sole-name claimant, who is typically the more vulnerable party, remains subject to a framework that excludes the most common forms of non-financial contribution. The decision in Curran v Collins confirms that Rosset‘s acquisition threshold survives, and the recent Court of Appeal decision in Hudson v Hathway, while liberating in its treatment of detrimental reliance, did not disturb the underlying framework.
Secondly, the increased flexibility comes at the cost of predictability. Parties cannot order their affairs around a doctrine whose operation depends on a judicial appraisal of the “whole course of dealing”. Legal advice in this area is notoriously difficult, and litigation is correspondingly expensive. The fairness of an outcome reached after years of litigation, costing more than the disputed share is worth, is at best partial fairness. Empirical studies of how the doctrine is applied in lower courts (Hayward, 2016) demonstrate considerable variability in outcomes on similar facts.
Thirdly, the doctrine’s improved flexibility entrenches rather than alleviates the institutional problem. By appearing to deliver substantive justice in some cases, it reduces the urgency of legislative reform. Every reasonably fair outcome under the current law becomes an argument against changing it, even though the cases that produce unfair outcomes, typically involving partners without the resources to litigate, remain invisible.
What would a fair regime look like?
The Law Commission’s 2007 proposals provide a starting point. The recommended scheme would have applied to eligible cohabitants on relationship breakdown, allowing one party to apply for financial relief where they had made qualifying contributions to the relationship and could demonstrate either a continuing economic disadvantage or that the other party had retained a benefit derived from those contributions. The scheme was structured to respect autonomy through opt-out provisions and to limit court discretion through statutory criteria.
The scheme would have advantages over the CICT on every dimension of fairness identified earlier. It would respect autonomy more meaningfully by allowing parties to opt out by agreement, while providing default protection for those who do not. It would recognise non-financial contributions explicitly. It would replace the rhetoric of intention with the reality of relational justice, allowing courts to reach principled redistributive outcomes within a transparent statutory framework. It would provide greater predictability than the current law, because the qualifying criteria and adjustment factors would be specified by Parliament rather than developed case-by-case.
None of this requires assimilating cohabitation to marriage. The Law Commission was careful to propose a scheme distinct from the matrimonial regime, recognising that cohabitants who have chosen not to marry should not be subjected to the full apparatus of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The proposal struck a measured balance between autonomy and protection. Its rejection by successive governments reflects political calculation rather than principled objection.
In the absence of legislation, two interim judicial developments would mitigate the worst features of the current law without overstepping institutional limits. First, the courts could acknowledge openly that the CICT in its modern form operates on a fairness rationale and articulate the criteria by which fairness is to be assessed. Sir Terence Etherton’s extrajudicial writings provide a template for such honesty (Etherton, 2008). Secondly, the Rosset threshold in sole-name cases could be relaxed to recognise sustained indirect financial contributions, as the Privy Council was willing to do in Abbott v Abbott [2007] UKPC 53. Both would be improvements, but neither would substitute for legislation.
Conclusion: contingent fairness is not fair protection
The CICT does not provide fair protection for cohabiting partners in family homes. It provides outcomes that are sometimes fair, particularly in joint-name cases where the equal-shares presumption supplies a sensible default, but the fairness is contingent on facts the doctrine cannot reliably capture and on a judicial inquiry whose operating criteria it refuses to articulate. In sole-name cases, the doctrine systematically disadvantages partners whose contributions to the relationship have been non-financial or indirect, a disadvantage that maps onto, and reproduces, gendered patterns of economic life.
The deeper problem is that the doctrine has been pressed into service to perform a function it was not designed to bear. Property law allocates entitlements by reference to acquisition events, agreements, and contributions. Cohabitation is a relational status that generates obligations of a different kind. Asking the CICT to deliver relational justice produces a doctrine that purports to find intentions while inventing them, that claims to respect autonomy while ignoring the conditions that would make autonomy meaningful, and that achieves rough justice in some cases at the cost of arbitrariness in others.
The remedy is legislative, not doctrinal. The Law Commission’s 2007 proposals, refined where necessary in light of comparative experience and the Women and Equalities Committee’s 2022 recommendations, would deliver a regime that respects autonomy, recognises non-financial contributions, provides predictability, and aligns the legal treatment of cohabitation with what cohabitation actually is. Until Parliament acts, the CICT will continue to deliver fairness that is partial, opaque, and inequitably distributed, which, on any serious view of the concept, is not fair protection at all.
The argument is qualified in two respects. First, the case for legislative reform does not entail dismantling the CICT in cases that do not fit a statutory scheme: trust principles will continue to govern, for example, disputes between unmarried family members outside cohabiting partnerships, where intention-based reasoning remains appropriate. Secondly, no statutory scheme is perfect, and the design of opt-out provisions, qualifying periods, and adjustment criteria raises difficult policy questions on which reasonable people may disagree. But these are precisely the questions that should be debated and resolved in Parliament rather than smuggled into the development of a property-law doctrine that lacks the conceptual resources to address them. The continued reliance on the CICT in the cohabitation context represents an institutional failure as much as a doctrinal one, and its persistence delivers the appearance of fairness at the cost of its substance.
References
- Auchmuty, R. (2016) ‘Unfair shares for women: the rhetoric of equality and the reality of inequality’, in H. Diduck, N. Peleg and H. Reece (eds), Law in Society: Reflections on Children, Family, Culture and Philosophy. Brill.
- Barlow, A., Burgoyne, C., Clery, E. and Smithson, J. (2008) ‘Cohabitation and the law: myths, money and the media’, in A. Park et al (eds), British Social Attitudes: the 24th Report. Sage.
- Bottomley, A. (2006) ‘From Mrs Burns to Mrs Oxley: do co-habiting women (still) need marriage law?’, Feminist Legal Studies, 14(2), pp. 181–211.
- Dixon, M. (2012) ‘The still not ended, never-ending story’, Conveyancer and Property Lawyer, 76, pp. 83–87.
- Douglas, G., Pearce, J. and Woodward, H. (2009) ‘Cohabitants, property and the law: a study of injustice’, Modern Law Review, 72(1), pp. 24–47.
- Etherton, T. (2008) ‘Constructive trusts: a new model for equity and unjust enrichment’, Cambridge Law Journal, 67(2), pp. 265–287.
- Gardner, S. (1993) ‘Rethinking family property’, Law Quarterly Review, 109, pp. 263–303.
- Gardner, S. and Davidson, K. (2012) ‘The future of Stack v Dowden‘, Law Quarterly Review, 128, pp. 178–183.
- Hayward, A. (2016) ‘”Family property” and the process of “familialisation” of property law’, Child and Family Law Quarterly, 28(3), pp. 285–304.
- House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee (2022) The rights of cohabiting partners, HC 92. London: The Stationery Office.
- Law Commission (2007) Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown, Law Com No 307. London: The Stationery Office.
- Lawson, A. (1996) ‘The things we do for love: detrimental reliance in the family home’, Legal Studies, 16(2), pp. 218–231.
- Mee, J. (1999) The Property Rights of Cohabitees. Hart Publishing.
- Mee, J. (2007) ‘Stack v Dowden: a sequel’, Law Quarterly Review, 123, pp. 511–518.
- Probert, R. (2007) ‘A review of Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown‘, Family Law, 37, pp. 1052–1057.
- Wong, S. (1998) ‘Constructive trusts over the family home: lessons to be learned from other Commonwealth jurisdictions?’, Legal Studies, 18(3), pp. 369–390.
- Abbott v Abbott [2007] UKPC 53.
- Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317.
- Capehorn v Harris [2015] EWCA Civ 955.
- Curran v Collins [2015] EWCA Civ 404.
- Eves v Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1338.
- Fowler v Barron [2008] EWCA Civ 377.
- Gow v Grant [2012] UKSC 29.
- Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638.
- Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27.
- Hudson v Hathway [2022] EWCA Civ 1648.
- Jennings v Rice [2002] EWCA Civ 159.
- Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53.
- Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1990] UKHL 14.
- Oxley v Hiscock [2004] EWCA Civ 546.
- Southwell v Blackburn [2014] EWCA Civ 1347.
- Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17.
- Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18.
- Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 (Ireland).
- Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
- Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006.
- Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
- Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (NZ).
