If you’re unmarried but living with a partner, it’s important to understand that “common law marriage” rights are often misunderstood.
During a break up or separation, it can be shocking to learn you have fewer rights than a married couple.
The interesting case of Kirishani v Major [2026] EWHC 835 demonstrates what can happen when a relationship ends and one party seeks compensation.
In Kirishani v Major a couple had lived together for roughly two years in a property owned by Ms Kirishani (“K”). During their relationship they shared expenses, went on holiday together, and had an informal agreement for Mr Major (“M”) to pay rent of £1,000 each month. Due to circumstances at the time, M could not continue to do so after paying three months of rent. Throughout their relationship, K also picked up the vast majority of their expenditure.
Eventually, the relationship soured and the couple separated.
K had kept detailed records throughout their relationship of joint expenses and had carefully documented everything in spreadsheets. M had access to these spreadsheets and regularly added to them. K used these spreadsheets as evidence to bring claims against M for c.£20,000 of shared expenses (mostly for trips and holidays) and c.£16,000 in unpaid rent.
The issue for the court to determine was whether there was a legally enforceable agreement that M would repay K these sums. He accepted entirely her presentation of what she was owed and that morally he should pay her back.
However, the court determined that there was no legally enforceable agreement and that the arrangements between K and M were based on trust and goodwill rather than legal obligation. There had been no intention to create legal relations.
When arrangements are based on trust in a domestic setting, the court will be slow to find legally binding agreements. However, each case will turn on its own facts and the court will look at the nature of the relationship between the relevant couple. In this case, there was no clear agreement between K and M and K had not sought to enforce the arrangements during the currency of their relationship. It was only after the relationship’s break down that she sought repayment. It was clear that she would not have taken steps during the relationship to sue M for what she was owed, as the arrangements were based on trust.
If you’re in a relationship and living together, it is advisable to formalise financial arrangements in a Cohabitation Agreement clearly setting out the financial ramifications. In this case K was in fact able to recover a smaller amount (c.£9000) from M that she had given to him for investment purposes. This was recoverable was because it was explicitly clear that there was an expectation of repayment. In fact, this was the only time that money had actually passed between the two rather than K just paying for things throughout their relationship.
Ultimately whether money will be repayable will depend on the circumstances of the individual relationship and the judge notes that, “the words “cohabitation” and “cohabitees” are capable of describing a wide range of relationships from those very similar to a traditional marriage at on end to those such students or others sharing accommodation purely for the sake of convenience at the other.”
When planning to move in together it is important to be clear in advance about how joint costs will be met. A well drafted Cohabitation Agreement can be extremely beneficial in seeking to clarify financial arrangements and record ownership of property and what will happen in the event of a relationship breakdown. Payne Hicks Beach can offer advice and assist with the preparation of Cohabitation Agreements to record intentions in a formal manner.
