Two men entering into a relationship of ‘master and slave’ signed a document entitled a ‘statement of trust’ intended to regulate the property arrangements as between themselves. They later signed a cohabitation agreement. They were advised that it was unenforceable, and were advised to seek independent advice. Property was conveyed into one name. They later claimed the defendant was negligent in referring to the statement of trust which was likely to be void as contrary to public policy.
Held: The court should distinguish between a property contract between two people whose sexual relationship brought them to live together, and a property relationship springing from the sexual relationship. A contract between consenting adults would not be avoided under public policy unless it was meretritious or for prostitution. The statement of trust was an attempt to express the sexual relationship in a property contract. Neither law firm was negligent. Even had the statement of trust been void, it would have had to have been referred to.
Hart J
Times 28-Jan-2004
England and Wales
Updated: 01 October 2021; Ref: scu.193408