(Chancery Division; HHJ Purle QC (sitting as judge of the High Court); 15 December 2009)
The woman's claim that she had a beneficial interest in the house in which she and the man had cohabited for a significant period was dismissed. The woman had made no financial contribution to the purchase price, and although she had loaned the man certain sums, there had been no representation that she would have a share in the property. While the woman's contribution to the development of the property could be described as significant there had been no common intention giving rise to a constructive trust or estoppel. The woman had given up her career at the bar, but had done so in the context of the relationship and intended marriage, and not on the strength of any belief that she had or would acquire any beneficial interest in the property. The woman was entitled to the engagement ring she had been given by the man.