Most couples don’t think of their relationship in legal terms. They share holidays, split bills (or don’t), and trust that things will “even out” over time. But what happens when the relationship ends — and one person wants their money back?

The High Court decision in Kirishani v Major is a fascinating reminder that not every financial arrangement between couples creates a legal right to repayment.

The Background: Holidays, Rent and a Relationship

The case involved a couple who had lived together for around two years. During that time:

• The claimant paid for a significant share of holidays and expenses.
• She kept detailed spreadsheets tracking what she said was owed.
• There was also an informal arrangement that the defendant would pay £1,000 per month in “rent” for living in her property.

When the relationship broke down, she brought claims for:

• around £20,000 in shared expenses, and
• around £16,000 in unpaid “rent”.

At first glance, this may sound like a straightforward debt claim. It wasn’t.

The Central Question: Was This Legally Binding?

The key issue for the court was not whether money had been spent — that was clear. The real question was: Did the parties intend these arrangements to be legally binding?

That is a crucial distinction in law. Many financial arrangements between couples are based on trust, expectation and goodwill, rather than legal obligation.

“You Owe Me” Doesn’t Always Mean You Can Sue

One of the most interesting aspects of the case is that:

• The defendant accepted he “owed” money,
• He even corrected spreadsheets showing the amounts,
• There was an expectation he would repay at some point.

But the court still found no legally enforceable agreement. Why?

Because the obligation was seen as moral, not legal — something arising from the relationship, not from a contract. The judge described it as a “common or garden” situation where couples share expenses with an informal understanding, but without intending to create legal consequences.

The Role of “Domestic Arrangements”

The case draws on long-established legal principles:

• In domestic or family settings, courts are slow to find legally binding agreements.
• The assumption is that arrangements are based on trust and affection, not contracts.

Importantly, this case explores whether that thinking applies to unmarried couples. The High Court made clear that you cannot simply assume all cohabiting couples fall into one category. Instead, it depends on the nature of the relationship and the facts.

Why the Claim Failed

Several factors worked against the claimant:

1. No clear agreement
   There was no firm, express agreement about repayment — just a general expectation.
2. No enforcement during the relationship
   She never insisted on payment at the time or made it a condition of continuing the arrangements.
3. Behaviour consistent with trust, not contract
   The parties behaved like a couple, not like commercial partners.
4. The reality test
   The judge asked a simple but powerful question:

Would either party really have sued the other during the relationship? The answer was clearly no — and that pointed strongly against a legal contract.

One Exception: Clear Agreements Still Count

Interestingly, one part of the claim did succeed. A smaller payment made for investment purposes was recoverable — because it was clearly understood to be repayable.

This highlights an important point: Where there is a clear, specific agreement — especially about repayment — the court will enforce it.

Practical Lessons for Clients

This case offers some very real-world guidance:

1. Not all financial arrangements are legally enforceable
   Even detailed records (like spreadsheets) may not be enough.
2. Clarity matters
   If you expect repayment, it should be clearly agreed — ideally in writing.
3. Timing matters
   If you only raise repayment after the relationship ends, that may weaken your case.
4. Relationships are not business arrangements
   Courts recognise that couples often act out of trust, not legal obligation.

The Bigger Picture

Cases like this are increasingly common as more couples:

• live together without marrying,
• share expenses informally, and
• later fall into dispute when relationships break down.

But the law has not fully caught up with modern relationship realities. There is still a significant gap between:

• what people think is fair, and
• what the law will actually enforce.

Final Thought

Kirishani v Major is a reminder that love and money can be a difficult combination. What feels like a clear understanding at the time may not translate into a legal right later.

For couples living together, the message is simple: If something really matters financially, don’t leave it to trust alone — make it clear, and make it formal.