The High Court has ruled that a couple who broke up after twenty-five years together should share the proceeds of the sale of their home, despite one of the partners having contributed more towards it than the other.

The case arose because Christopher Harlowe had paid £90,000 towards refurbishing the property he owned jointly with his partner Margot Clarke. When they broke up, Ms Clarke claimed that half the proceeds of the house should be hers. Mr Harlowe, on the other hand, claimed that ‘equitable accounting’ meant that his half share should be augmented by a half of the £90,000 ‘extra’ he had invested.

When the property was acquired, the couple had made a declaration of trust to the effect that they were equal owners of the property.

The judge was unimpressed with Mr Harlowe’s argument. For ‘equitable accounting’ to be appropriate, there has to be a breach or failure to comply with an obligation by one party. The judge found that while the relationship was continuing, there was no such breach or failure. The relevant agreement was the statement of trust which meant the proceeds should be split equally..

Had Mr Harlowe wished to protect his additional investment in the property, he could have done so by having the agreement appropriately worded at the outset. It is important when agreements are being drawn up that the implications of them are considered and understood. Before buying a property jointly, it is wise to consider all eventualities including the more unpalatable ones and ensure they are dealt with.