Ms Jones had a 90% interest in the property. The parties’ intentions had changed since their separation.

Ms Dowden had contributed significantly more to the purchase price and the parties had kept their finances completely separate throughout their relationship, despite the fact that they had four children together.

The starting point is that where legal ownership of a property is in joint names the beneficial interest is in joint names. Where legal ownership of a property was in sole names then the starting point is that the beneficial interest is solely owned. The claimant must justify departure from this. ‘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.’ All the facts of the case are relevant in determining the parties’ intentions.

An opposite sex couple wished to enter into a civil partnership, claiming that the current Civil Partnership Act 2004 which only permits civil partnerships between same sex couples, was in breach of their Article 8 and 14 rights.

The judges ruled unanimously that the 2004 Act was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr Wayling (W) and Mr Jones (J) cohabited for a number of years. J promised W that he would leave property to him in his will if he helped in running his business. W did assist and received very little money for doing so (described as ‘pocket money’ by the court). J did not leave W any property in his will. W claimed for proprietary estoppel.

It was held that W assisted in the business in reliance on J’s promise. The court determined that the promise did not have to be the sole motivation for a person acting to their detriment. Once the link had been established it was for J’s estate to prove that W had not relied on the promise, which it was unable to do.

A British lesbian couple lawfully married in Canada, then challenged the English court’s failure to recognise their relationship as a marriage in this country, on the basis that it was discriminatory, because a heterosexual marriage abroad would have been recognised as such.

Section 11(c) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 together with public policy considerations and the terms of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 itself meant that their action failed.