A construction worker and his ex-partner returned to court to dispute their shares in a freehold property.

The property at 42 William Street, Swansea was purchased in joint names in 1987 and was the couple’s family home. In May 1991, the property was transferred into the sole name of Jeanette O’Kelly and in 2006 she sold the property to her partner Kenneth Dylan Davies for £155,000. Simultaneously, Ms O’Kelly purchased another property from a third property for £130,000.

Mr Davies then let 42 William Street to tenants, where the rent contributed to mortgage payments. The property was later re-possessed and the couple rented accommodation together until renovations were finished on their second property, 74 Lon Olchfa. They then lived together in the second property until 2011, when Ms O’Kelly found out about Mr Davies’ affair with another woman and the pair separated.

In Ms O’Kelly’s appeal in relation to a previous case she asserted that the judge was wrong to infer a common intention to share the beneficial interest in the property.  She also maintained that if her ex-partner Kenneth Dylan Davies was to have a beneficial interest in the property which had always been held in her name alone, the public policy would not permit Mr Davies to enforce any equitable interest he may have had in the property.

Within her defence filed on 13th March 2012, Ms O’Kelly denied that Mr Davies had made any financial contribution to the acquisition or renovation of the second property and there was no common intention that the beneficial interest in the property should be held jointly.

Mr Davies appeared in person, but did not seek to address the court except to make a plea for fairness. In Mr Davies’ claim on 5th January, he stated his case that he was the financial provider for the family as a worker in the construction industry and the source of funds for the purchase of the mid-terrace property.

The judges consulted an array of precedent laws to come to his decision, noting on one occasion that since the transfer was held by the parties jointly to Ms O’Kelly, the property would, under the presumption of a resulting trust, have been held by Ms ‘Kelly on trust for the parties equally.

It was found that events between 1990 and 2011 gave rise to the inference of their common intention to the property.

At the conclusion of argument and retirement for consideration, the court informed the parties that the appeal would be dismissed.

Lady Justice Gloster said in her statement “Whether the analysis depends on constructive or resulting trust, or merely the ascertainment of the parties' common intention, there was no need for the respondent to rely on the illegality relating to the reason for the legal title to 74 Lon Olchfa being in the appellant's name in order to establish his beneficial interest in the property.”