Whose Farm Is It Anyway?

In the recent decision in the case of Dobson v Griffey, the High Court considers whether a co-habitee has a beneficial interest in a property owned solely by her partner.

What were the facts of the case?

Ms Dobson and Mr Griffey were in a romantic relationship for a number of years and lived together in rented accommodation before deciding to buy a property. In February 2007, Mr Griffey purchased a farm in his sole name and funded the purchase by way of a mortgage.

For a number of years following the purchase, the parties lived together at the farm. The farm was renovated significantly with Ms Dobson overseeing works to the livery and farmhouse, but with Mr Griffey funding the project.

The relationship between the parties broke down in 2012 and the farm was subsequently sold. After the sale, emails passed between the parties in which Mr Griffey offered Ms Dobson 50% of the proceeds of sale; however, this was never paid to Ms Dobson.

Ms Dobson brought a claim on the basis that she was entitled to 50% of the proceeds of sale. Ms Dobson's case was that there was an agreement between the parties that they would each have an equal interest in the farm, and Ms Dobson had relied on this agreement to her detriment. Ms Dobson also said that she contributed £10,000 to the purchase of the farm, but this was denied by Mr Griffey who could account for all of the purchase monies.

What were the issues before the Court?

The Court had to consider whether Ms Dobson had established an interest in the farm and the following points were considered:

Was there a common intention between the parties to share the beneficial interest in the farm at the time of purchase? Did Ms Dobson's contributions to the farm works give rise to an interest in the farm? If there was an agreement, had Ms Dobson relied on that agreement to her detriment? Could Mr Griffey's actions after the sale of the farm be considered evidence of his intention? What did the Court decide?

The Court considered all of the issues and held that Ms Dobson had failed to establish an interest in the farm and therefore she was not entitled to any of the proceeds of sale.

Court concluded that there was no agreement between the parties at the time of the purchase, Ms Dobson's submissions in relation to the agreement between the parties and the justification for omitting her name from the title were rejected, and the judge commented that:

"It seems to be to be a fig-leaf invented to protect her own...