Vivien Croly, specialist matrimonial finance barrister whose practice includes cohabitation disputes involving ToLATA publishes a case summary for Lexis Nexis on Hudson v Hathway [2022] EWHC 631 (QB), [2022] 2 FLR 1323.
This case involved a cohabiting couple who jointly owned their family home in equal shares. After separation, they changed their beneficial interest by agreement. The question on appeal was, ‘Must a party claiming a subsequent increase in [their] equitable share necessarily have acted to [their] detriment? Or does common intention alone suffice to alter the beneficial shares?’
While the facts in this case are relatively niche, the judgments contained within are suggestive of a more permeating issue: that is, if the current legal test for requiring detrimental reliance is no longer equitable, then how effective is the current law for cohabitation claims?