The case of Kirishani v Major, heard recently in the High Court of England and Wales, has answered key questions around what happens when cohabiting couples split up, and one of the parties ‘owes’ the other money for one of various reasons. The ruling clarifies what kinds of financial arrangements are likely to be legally enforceable, and what the requirements are for the person who has ‘lost out’ to get their money back.
Swati Somaiya, a family lawyer at Excello, explains what happened in this case and its significance for separating couples in this article.
What was this case about?
Kirishani v Major [2026] EWHC 835 (Ch) was a dispute between two former cohabitating partners. Ms Kirishana was seeking to recover money from Mr Major after their relationship ended, claiming he had agreed to pay a sum covering holiday costs, rent and money she had given him to invest on her behalf. Mr Major disputed her claims.
The case posed a practical question faced by many couples going through a separation: while they were living together, could informal promises made in the context of a relationship count as legally enforceable financial arrangements?
Mr Major cohabited in Ms Kirishana’s property between 2016 and 2018. During their relationship, she provided him with financial support. From mid‑2017, Mr Major agreed to pay £1,000 per month rent, but he only paid for three months before stopping. The couple agreed they would split holiday costs equally, and even recorded their understanding of the cost divisions in spreadsheets. Ms Kirishana also gave Mr Major £8,888 to invest on her behalf.
Ms Kirishana went on to issue County Court proceedings seeking:
- £16,000 for unpaid rent
- £20,000 for Mr Major’s share of holiday expenses
- £8,888 investment money
The County Court ruling
For an agreement to be enforceable as a contract, the law usually requires that both parties intended the agreement to have legal standing. In family and relationship contexts, the courts in England and Wales sometimes apply a common starting point called the “presumption against intention to create legal relations.” They may therefore assume that arrangements made during the course of domestic life were not legal promises, unless strong evidence to the contrary exists.
Taking this into account, the Country Court trial judge settled on a split outcome.
The judge found the parties had a clear agreement that the £8,888 investment was to be repaid. These funds looked less like the kind of “relationship arrangement” outlined above and more like a straightforward transaction: money given for a specific purpose, with an expectation of repayment.
In contrast, despite the couple having agreed a plan for rent payments and even ran a spreadsheet to monitor holiday expenses, the judge concluded these were still part of the couple’s domestic arrangements and therefore not intended to be legally enforceable. A key part of the judge’s reasoning was that Ms Kirishana knew from the outset of their cohabitation that Mr Major needed financial support; he also took into account that the couple had prior to separating hoped their relationship would culminate long-term in marriage and having children together.
High Court appeal
Ms Kirishana appealed, arguing that the judge had:
- applied the presumption against intention to create legal relations wrongly, in particular because the couple were cohabiting and not married, and
- set the bar too high for what counts as evidence to override the presumption (taking into account the agreed rent figure and holiday spreadsheets).
Sir Anthony Mann, ruling in the High Court, dismissed the appeal, clarifying three important points with relevance for future cases.
First, the presumption against intention to create legal relations does not automatically apply for cohabiting couples. The court noted that the term “cohabitees” can describe a wide range of living situations spanning from couples in long-term romantic relationships that could be perceived as marriages in all but name, to acquaintances sharing a home for convenience (such as students). The broad spectrum of potential cohabiting relationships means applying the presumption in every instance would not be appropriate.
Second, application of the presumption depends on the nature of the couple’s prior relationship. Where their living situation has the hallmarks of domestic life, including support arrangements typical of a romantically involved couple, the presumption is likely to apply. In this case the trial judge made a factual finding that the relationship did have those characteristics.
Third, clear evidence is needed to overcome the assumed presumption against intention to create legal relations. The High Court agreed that where a financial arrangement sits within a close domestic relationship, the court will look for clear indicators that both parties meant for that arrangement to be legally binding. Day-to-day understandings or even informal tracking will not qualify as such. In Kirishani v Major, the evidence (including spreadsheets and a rent figure) did not support a conclusion that the parties intended their holiday and rent arrangements to be legally enforceable given the broader context of the couple living together and supporting one another.
What do cohabiting couples need to know?
The ruling in this case is especially relevant to anyone living with a partner and sharing costs, especially if one person pays most of the bills, pays “rent” to the homeowner or gives their partner money to invest. Kirishani v Major demonstrates that not all financial arrangements are treated in the same way when relationships end. The court concluded in this case that the arrangements were based on the good faith of the promises made and were not intended to be rigid, binding agreements.
It appears, the courts will therefore look closely at context, and the outcome may depend on whether, in their view, money changing hands was based on an understanding within the relationship or on a legally binding agreement.
If your relationship has broken down and there are financial arrangements in question, your first step should be to seek specialist legal advice from a family lawyer.
