Unjust Enrichment for Cohabiting Couples: Reassessing the Common Intention Constructive Trust
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis considers the use of unjust enrichment in the cohabitation context in England and Wales. The increasing prevalence of unmarried cohabitation combined with continuing Government refusal to reform the law means that there remains a danger of significant vulnerability at the end of cohabiting relationships, particularly where one party has not contributed financially to acquisition of the property. The lack of legislative reform means that development of the law will have to come from the courts. The current law requires parties to use the law of trusts to argue over the beneficial interest of their home. In order to move the law forward and respond to the vulnerability often experienced by the less economically powerful partner, new and creative ways forward are needed. The doctrine of unjust enrichment has been used for disputes between cohabiting couples in Canada and Scotland and has often been the subject of academic attention. This thesis undertakes a sustained, detailed examination of how the doctrine might work in this context in England and Wales, looking at each of the constituent elements of an unjust enrichment claim and using restitutionary scholarship to provide a new perspective on cohabitation disputes. Criticisms of the common intention constructive trust – the current doctrine used in this area – are drawn on to question whether unjust enrichment might provide novel development initiatives for longstanding institutional issues with the trust. This thesis therefore considers the legal valuation of caring and other domestic responsibilities within the home, the nature of intention and the resulting power balance between the parties, and the focus within the current law on questions of ownership. The aim is to question whether unjust enrichment might provide a way forward for the law which corrects some of the problems with the current law and is therefore advantageous for litigants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".