Howard Hampshire v Kathleen Bonser [2025] EWCC 55

October 20, 2025

Understanding the Court’s Approach to Constructive Trusts

Introduction

This case involved a dispute between long term cohabitants over ownership of a former guesthouse property, Fron Oleu Hall in Gwynedd. Mr Howard Hampshire (the claimant) sought a declaration that he and Ms Kathleen Bonser (the defendant) should be “beneficially entitled in equal shares to the net proceeds of sale” of Fron Oleu, which had been registered solely in Ms Bonser’s name since 2000. In reality, Hampshire accepted he had no financial stake in the purchase but claimed a joint ownership arrangement based on their shared intentions and his contributions to the renovation and B&B business. Ms Bonser countered that the property was bought with her own funds and remained hers alone, arguing that Hampshire’s help was no more than what a partner might do. HHJ Owen found in favour of Hampshire, awarding him a 15% share of the net sale proceeds (approximately £125,773.80). The key issues were whether a common intention to share ownership had been established and whether Hampshire had detrimentally relied on that intention.

Background

Mr Hampshire (born 1943) and Ms Bonser (born 1945) met in 1998. At that time Hampshire was 55 and owned his own home in Sedgley, West Midlands, and Bonser was 53 and living in a house (“The Holme”) she had shared with a previous partner. Bonser wished to run a B&B, so she sold The Holme at the end of 1999 and moved into Hampshire’s home in Sedgley until a suitable guesthouse could be found. On 22 May 2000, they purchased Fron Oleu Hall for £180,000. Title was registered in Bonser’s sole name, funded by the proceeds from her sale of The Holme. The property was derelict and required extensive renovation; Hampshire resigned his job, sold his home, and bought another nearby house (Hafod Wen) in August 2000 to facilitate the project.

Renovations took over two years, and Fron Oleu opened as a B&B in late 2002. Hampshire worked long hours in the business, managing front of house, keeping accounts, and doing much of the physical upkeep, while Bonser provided capital and oversaw major works. The B&B ceased trading in summer 2005, and the couple briefly split; Hampshire left the property but returned in February 2006 to live with Bonser. They continued to cohabit at Fron Oleu thereafter. The parties also jointly purchased another home, held in joint names, whose sale proceeds were split equally, reflecting that at times they pooled funds for their shared life.

In 2023, by then Bonser was 77 and Hampshire 80, Ms Bonser suffered a stroke. The couple moved for about six months to her daughter’s house in Staffordshire, during which time Hampshire continued weekly inspections and maintenance of Fron Oleu. Fron Oleu was put on the market and sold on 24 November 2023, for about £850,000.. Shortly thereafter, 5 December 2023, Hampshire was asked to leave Bonser’s family home. He then commenced this claim, seeking a declaration of shared beneficial ownership of Fron Oleu.

Legal Framework

The dispute was governed by established principles concerning trusts of land. In cases where legal title to property is held in one party’s name, the starting presumption is that that party alone holds the beneficial interest. A non owner claiming an equitable share must prove a common intention, actual, inferred or imputed, that the property was to be shared between them. As Baroness Hale explained in Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432, the court must “ascertain the parties’ shared intentions, actual, inferred or imputed, with respect to the property in the light of their whole course of conduct in relation to it”. Merely living together or helping to run a family business does not automatically give a beneficial interest. There must be clear evidence of an agreement to share ownership of the property, and the claimant must have detrimentally relied on that shared intention.

When a beneficial interest is established, the court determines what share is fair by reference to the parties’ intentions and contributions at the time of acquisition. Crucially, any interests are fixed at acquisition unless there is exceptional evidence of a later variation. Even after Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, it remains exceptional to alter the inferred or imputed shares post-purchase. In short, the claimant bore the burden of showing that Hampshire and Bonser intended Fron Oleu to be jointly owned, and that he had acted to his detriment based on that intention.

The Court’s Reasoning

HHJ Owen applied the above principles. He first noted that Bonser’s sole legal ownership in 2000 meant it was for Hampshire to prove any beneficial interest. He then examined the parties’ evidence and conduct against the Stack v Dowden factors. The judge found that Hampshire had indeed played an active role from the outset. Unlike the facts in Geary v Rankine, where one party invested alone and only later involved the other, here “the Claimant was involved in the planning of the guesthouse from a very early stage. He resigned his employment and found a position running a hotel in Aberdyfi so that he could learn how to run the guesthouse, something which neither he nor the Defendant had any experience in”. Hampshire did most of the paperwork and front of house operation at Fron Oleu, even only taking minimal pay to protect his benefits. The judge observed that “He did more than that. He enabled the Defendant to fulfil her dream of opening a guesthouse and he worked hard with her on this business. His ongoing support thereafter meant that they were able to continue living in Fron Oleu”. In particular, Hampshire performed extensive DIY and upkeep, sanding woodwork, repairing roof, gardening, which went beyond mere incidental help. His six month caretaking of the property after Bonser’s stroke, checking Fron Oleu weekly, was noted as evidence of his continuing commitment.

By contrast, Ms Bonser’s evidence was that she financed the purchase and major works while Hampshire’s input was minimal. The judge did not accept that Hampshire’s share of effort was negligible; he disagreed with the defence submission that Hampshire’s tasks were “no more than what a cohabitee would be expected to do”. The court viewed Hampshire’s contributions, though largely non-financial, as significant and made to improve the joint venture. Bonser’s handling of the relationship, she admitted having no plans to share Fron Oleu and later spoke “very bitterly” of the relationship, did not outweigh the inference that the couple had intended to run the business together.

The judge ultimately found that a common intention to share Fron Oleu had been shown by the totality of their dealings. Having assessed all factors, he determined that a 15% share for Hampshire best reflected the balance of the parties’ contributions. As he explained:

“I am satisfied that the appropriate share should be 15% which I calculate as amounting to £125,773.80. That would mean that the Defendant can still keep her house … It reflects also the significantly greater financial contribution made by the Defendant to Fron Oleu but it also reflects the Claimant’s contributions, most of which were in kind.”

The judge therefore held that Hampshire had established a constructive trust over Fron Oleu in the proportion of 15% to him and 85% to Bonser.

Decision and Outcome

Judgment was entered for Mr Hampshire. HHJ Owen ordered that he recover £125,773.80 from the sale proceeds of Fron Oleu, representing his 15% beneficial share. No other orders, such as against Bonser’s retained home, were made. In practical terms, Hampshire will receive this lump sum, reflecting his asserted interest in the property. The defendant retains the remainder of the net sale proceeds. The case was treated as governed by principles of equitable title and no costs order is recorded in the available judgment.

Commentary and Significance

This case provides a useful illustration of how English courts apply constructive trust principles in long-term cohabitation disputes. It shows that, even decades after living together, a claimant can establish an equitable interest based on non-financial contributions, but only if a common intention to share is clear. Hampshire did not contribute cash to Fron Oleu’s purchase, yet the court recognised that his extensive labour and sacrifices, resigning work, learning hotel management, undertaking renovations, and maintaining the property, were part of the couple’s joint enterprise. The 15% award reflects a compromise: Bonser’s financial outlay was far greater, but Hampshire’s consistent efforts were held to justify a modest proprietary share.

For clients and advisers, Hampshire v Bonser underslines the importance of clarity in property arrangements between partners. Cohabitants relying on informal agreements should be aware that shared living and household contributions alone are not enough; one must demonstrate a mutual understanding that the home was to be held in common. If such understanding exists, the court will examine the whole course of conduct, including who paid for the property, who did the work, and who benefited, in determining the fair outcome. In practice, this decision highlights the value of formalising agreements, for example, by writing a declaration of trust, if equal sharing is intended. It also reminds lawyers that even after many years, a court can still impose a constructive trust; time does not bar the claim if the evidence of shared intention and reliance endures.

County Courts can, under Stack v Dowden principles, resolve such discretionary trust claims, not only High Courts. The case offers an example of applying the well known tests for common intention constructive trusts to a non-express situation.

Further Reading

• Cohabiting Couples and Beneficial Interests in the Family Home: Constructive Trusts and Alternatives
• Conveyancing Negligence Claims