Sophie and Harold lived together for over 2 years and had 5 children together. Sophie claims she is entitled to 50% of the property as a de facto partner under family law. She argues she contributed to mortgage payments and home improvements using money from her art classes. Harold claims they never formalized an agreement to share property. He argues Sophie's contributions were voluntary with no expectation of ownership. The legal issues center around whether Sophie has rights as a de facto partner or if contributions to the home were merely out of goodwill without implied ownership. Both parties provide legal arguments to support their positions on property rights and potential settlement.

1. LC38620 Intellectual Property Law
Answers:
Sophie Argument.
Sophie is a defacto partner of Harold having lived together in which a clear definition can be
sourced under the Family Law Act 1975, in which the relationship is presumed to exist or it
exists between two people (who are not legally married or related by family) who, having
regard to all of the circumstances of their relationship,lived together on a genuine domestic
basis for a period exceeding two years in the union. Having lived together for a period
exceeding 2 year and having children together as a couple, Sophie is entitled to a share of
the house as a de facto partner, the law provides that one is entitled to a 50% share of the
property including the house that they have and thus, she has a right to claim 50% share of
the house as it was a family house even though it was bought solely by Harold, her stake in
the house in terms of mortgage contribution and being present as a de facto partner makes
her to be entitled to a share of the property.
Secondly, she has taken care of the house in terms of paying for mortgages that the house
was supposed to be paid for in which in the course of doing her small house chore duties
and her art works, all the revenue that she has raised in the past she used it cumulatively
towards maintenance of the house while leaving nothing to chance nor investing in another
asset for her own as she thought that she was going to live in this property forever. It’s also
a disappointment that after all the sacrifices that she had towards establishing the family up
to the stage in which it is right now has been met with utter disgracefulness by her husband
who has failed to acknowledge the efforts and give her part of the property to settle on as
they had an agreement. In the course of their stay as cohabiting partners, she never had a
second though that her partner would later on change his mind regarding the house
ownership after sacrificing her time to give him children and waste her resources to modify
the house to suit their needs.
A surviving de facto partner in a qualifying relationship is entitled to share in the
relationship property under the Property act. After Harold moved to London to take care of
her ailing sister, he promised Sophie that they were in a partnership and they will always be
together. A statement that clearly indicates that if he acknowledged them to be in a
partnership relationship then the assets in their custody the were supposed to divide them
equally among themselves as it is done in the partnership whereby partners contribute
capital according to their abilities and when it comes to sharing the profits made, they share
it based on contribution. But when it comes to a marriage setting, acknowledging that they

2. were partners implies that they were bound to share the property and assets that they had
accumulated together during the period of their stay to make the partnership a success.
In addition, the stay that Harold has stayed in London for more than 5 years while Sophie
was back taking care of the family assets while she was aware that the property was for her
family since she has children with Harold. Having stayed back to take care of the property in
good faith calls for the need for a fair settlement so that the parties can get a fair share that
represents their efforts and sacrifice that they have place in the property to the extent in
which they have managed to raise the property value to the current price.
On the other hand, the efforts that she has placed to the construction and repairs of the
property with her little income deserves to be granted and awarded as it is the efforts that
has made the house to be able to stand and have an effective outlook contrary to the
anticipations of her de facto partner who does not acknowledge the efforts that she placed
to make the house a habitable unit. In addition, Harold had promised Sophie that she should
not bother with contribution in which she can later on contribute when she completes her
golf course of which when it was done, she contributed some of her small income towards
establishment of the unit and modification of the unit to make it to look more appealing and
appreciate in value.
Sophie’s stay at home as a house wife while taking care of the family five children while
doing small maintenance work at the property with the occasional money that she earned
from her golf drawing courses makes her to be regarded as a house wife in literal terms and
as such, having spent her life at the family house doing all these chores in the name of being
married should be awarded by being provided with a share that a house wife deserves to be
provided during separation, settlement of a will or disposal of a family asset as she also
contributed to the maintenance of the property unit the point it is now.
The income that she got and contributed to the improvement of the family house deserves
to be paid back if they were to settle and therefore, the separation should first of all be
conducted in a manner that she will be made aware on how she will collect her share as her
efforts are also evident in the way in which she has toiled for betterment of the house.
Moreover, her efforts in modification of the house cannot be computed since they moved in
together and therefore, she deserves a fair share of the house of which even if her name is
not registered in the property as one of the legal owners, she should be able to be given a
share equivalent to that of a wife or de facto partner would receive which in this case could
be 50% of the current value of the house.
Harold Counter Statement Argument.
Harold can also defend his actions and decision to throw Sophie from the house by first of
all claiming that they never formalized their cohabitation relationship rather, they used to
reside together as partners. The term he used as we are partnership relates to sharing of
house chores but there is no point where they had a written agreement that they were
going to share the property ownership rights. In regards to this defense, Harold can seek the
court to interpret the relationship as partners who did not have an agreement on settlement
of the property hence there is no point in contemplating and making Sophie to be an heir to
the property when she was not written neither in his will nor on the ownership of the
property.

3. The maintenance and extension construction costs that Sophie has erected on the property
was not agreed and it was done while he had travelled to London hence he was not aware of
the arrangements to such extent. Sophie had done such maintenance operations out of
goodwill she was not coerced or forced to use her money to make any extension to the
property and therefore, Harold can argue that such arrangements he is not aware of them
and therefore, there is no point for her to lay claim on a property that she does not have
right to as he did not have an intention nor communicate that he had an intention of
including her to the sharing of the property.
The property was purchased by him alone and he has been paying mortgage debt alone and
there was no point in time that he authorized Sophie to join in paying the mortgage debt nor
any maintenance costs that are associated with maintenance of the product from start to
completion. It is therefore evident that Sophie did all these maintained out of goodwill and
there was no time that she was compelled to do that hence Harold is not intending to share
the property with her as a partner in the relationship.
Harold can also argue that he had not yet introduced Sophie to any of his family members
nor did he had an intention of having her as his wife hence there was no such an agreement
that she was going to inherit part of the property. Moreover, there was no any will
settlement that has been done or is intended to be done in relation to the property share
hence the act of compelling him to release the 50% property to Sophie is unwelcomed as he
has not yet declared his will nor intention to either include or exclude Sophie from the will.
Telling Sophie to pack and get out of the house is because he is intending to settle with his
new partner and there is no way in which the two women can reside in the house together.
Sophie therefore has a right to look for another property to reside on or in the extension
that she built at the back of the house and await the time when I will write a will for
settlement to determine whether the will recognize her or not as the heir of the property.
Property ownership documents and the mortgage application that he applied for the
construction of the house is that the property is entitled to him alone and no other partner
who is not entitled to be recognized as the owner of the property.
In addition, there is no written or oral agreement that Sophie and I made in regards to how
the property will be shared in case of demise of one partner, separation of the partners or
any other circumstance that will make the partners to consider changing the relationship.
One cannot be forced to settle an amount that they do not agree on even though there is a
need to settle the partnership mutually without force or intimidation. There is no way in
which I can be forced to comply and implement a plan of 50/50 share to the property while
the property is acknowledged. Hence, there is no way in which I can be forced to
acknowledge the share that Sophie is seeking without justification of the costs sought as
such costs are not justified on what ground they should be implemented. Settlement of a
property dispute is inherently a function of the partners and not merely an agreement or
intimidation to allow settlement of the property without goodwill.
I still acknowledge Sophie as a cohabiting partner and at the time of declaring my will, that
is the time that I will share the property with her but not right now that I can be forced to
share the property equally because am still residing in the property and have not died for
the property to be divided 50/50 as claimed by Sophie. Settlement of the property will

4. incorporate a share of Sophie and the five children and not right now when have not yet
decided to settle the property because this is a challenge that seeks to be solved. With time,
I will be able to make proactive decisions regarding settlement of the property but not be
coerced on the same.
Bibliography
Case law.
Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17
Jones v. Kernott [2011] UKSC 53
Lloyds Bank plc v. Rosset [1990] UKHL 14
Oxley v Hiscock [2004] EWCA Civ 546
Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777
SM v Entry Clearance [2018] UKSC 9
S v. J and others [2016] EWHC 586 (Fam)
Jones v Kernott [2012] 1 All ER 1265, [2011]
Coman v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigr?r[2018]