Hammond v Mitchell [1991] 1 WLR 1127
Cohabitee seeking equitable interest in property held in sole name of former partner.
Facts
Mr Hammond and Ms Mitchell began living together in 1977 and had two children. Mr Hammond was the sole legal owner of a bungalow in Essex in which they lived. Ms Mitchell supported Mr Hammond in his business ventures. Mr Hammond told Ms Mitchell that the property was half hers, but there was no formal agreement to that effect. The couple separated in 1989, and Ms Mitchell claimed a beneficial interest in the bungalow.
Issues
As the parties never married, the flexible approach to the division of assets under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 was not available to them. Ms Mitchell claimed, however, there had been express discussions between herself and Mr Hammond, which culminated in an express agreement that the properties were to be held on trust for them both in equal shares. Mr Hammond contended that there had been no such express agreement between himself and Ms Mitchell and claimed the equitable title to the properties should follow the legal title, and remain with him.
Decision/Outcome
Ms Mitchell was awarded one half of the total interest in the properties. In such cases, a court should first address whether there had been any agreement between the parties as to their respective beneficial shares. Here, the court found there had been express discussions regarding home ownership and it was, therefore, held to have been their common intention to share it equally. If no such agreement is evidenced, the court should then address whether any intention to share the beneficial interest can be imputed to the parties, on the basis of all the evidence as to their conduct during the relationship.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the decision in Hammond v Mitchell [1991] 1 WLR 1127 and the legal principles applied by Waite J. The case remains a recognised authority on express common intention constructive trusts for cohabiting couples where property is held in one party’s sole name.
Readers should be aware of subsequent significant developments in this area. The Supreme Court in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 substantially developed the law on beneficial interests in shared homes, particularly where both parties are on the legal title, and clarified the approach to inferring and imputing common intention. While Hammond v Mitchell concerned sole legal ownership and an express common intention, the broader framework for analysing beneficial interests in cohabitation disputes has evolved considerably through those later cases and should be read alongside this article. The position for unmarried cohabitants remains governed by trust law rather than the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, as the article correctly states; there is still no general statutory scheme for property adjustment on cohabitation breakdown in England and Wales, though law reform in this area has been under ongoing discussion.
