Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Pateman’s Sexual Contract in Beneficial Interests in Property

  • Published:
Feminist Legal Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While the common law may result in justice between heterosexual intimate partners in particular claims for a beneficial interest in the family home, it does so on its own terms—terms drawn up according to contractarian principles reflecting male sex-right, that subsist even as the world and the institution of marriage (and marriage-like relationships) have changed. This paper uses examples from the case law across four common law jurisdictions to expose the terms on which the contractarian nature of intimate partner trusts permits claims for a distribution of intimate partners’ property, and how it excludes. In particular, it identifies the pervasiveness of the sexual contract in subsuming women’s expression of individualism to those of her intimate partner, and the implications of this for the derivation of a property interest in the family home.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. ‘Intimate relationships’ includes married, de facto, and civil unions. ‘Spouse’ and ‘spousal’ contemplate all such relationships. This inquiry is limited to heterosexual unions.

  2. In England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, called ‘common intention trusts’.

  3. Notably, Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970; Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

  4. For example, first in state jurisdictions in Australia, followed by a national scheme pursuant to the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act 2008.

  5. See, eg, discussion in Baumgartner v Baumgartner [1987] 164 CLR 137 per Gaudron J.

  6. See, eg, Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432; Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583; Kerr v Baranow [2011] 1 SCR 269; Gillies v Keogh [1989] 2 NZLR 327.

  7. See recently in Ashton v Pratt (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 3 (16 January 2012) which failed on appeal in Ashton v Pratt [2015] NSWCA 12 (16 February 2015).

  8. Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777, 796 (‘Pettitt’).

  9. See, eg, Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432; Kerr v Baranow [2011] 1 SCR 269.

  10. In recognition of the gendered individual, this section uses masculine pronouns in reference to market liberal precepts.

  11. Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777, 810, 817, 824.

  12. [1970] AC 777.

  13. Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777, 792.

  14. Ibid 822; Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886, 902.

  15. Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777, 799.

  16. Ibid 799.

  17. Eves v Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1338.

  18. Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638.

  19. Oxley v Hiscock [2005] Fam 211.

  20. Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317.

  21. Lloyds Bank Plc v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107, 130.

  22. Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432 (‘Stack’).

  23. Ibid, 459.

  24. Ibid, citing Gray, Kevin and Gray, Susan Francis. 2005. Elements of land law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 864.

  25. Jones v Kernott [2012] 1 AC 776.

  26. (1985) 160 CLR 583 (‘Muschinski’).

  27. (1987) 164 CLR 137 (‘Baumgartner’).

  28. [1980] 2 SCR 834.

  29. See discussion in Kerr v Baranow [2011] 1 SCR 269, 319.

  30. [1995] 1 NZLR 277, 287.

  31. Ibid, 285.

  32. Notably in the Canadian cases, eg, Kerr v Baranow [2011] 1 SCR 269. See also Baumgartner v Baumgartner [1987] 164 CLR 137; Jones v Kernott [2010] 1 WLR 2401.

  33. Eg, Seguin v Vanasse, reported in Kerr v Baranow [2011] 1 SCR 269.

  34. See, eg, Lloyds Bank Plc v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107; Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317; Cossey v Bach [1992] 3 NZLR 612; Murdoch v Murdoch [1975] 1 SCR 423.

  35. See, eg, discussion in Baumgartner v Baumgartner [1987] 164 CLR 137, 155.

  36. For the most egregious example, see Murdoch v Murdoch [1975] 1 SCR 423, 443.

  37. By way of case study, the Court ignored the stigma attached to unmarried cohabitants in Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137.

  38. See also Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777, 826; Lankow v Rose [1995] 1 NZLR 277, 285.

  39. The context for this is the absence of intention to create legal relations through exchange occurring in the intimate context. See eg Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2KB 571, affirmed in Ashton v Pratt (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 3 (16 January 2012). The latter was upheld in Ashton v Pratt [2015] NSWCA 12 (16 February 2015) though without citing Balfour.

  40. See, eg, Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777, 799.

  41. Although note, eg, Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432; Lankow v Rose [1995] 1 NZLR 277; Pettkus v Becker [1980] 2 SCR 834, where in each case the woman claimant demonstrated sufficiently transactional behaviour to succeed in her claim.

  42. See, eg, Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137, 155.

  43. Muschinski v Dodds [1985] 160 CLR 583. Though not a property interest, the Court did, however, grant a charge over Mr Dodd’s half legal interest to protect Ms Muschinski’s disproportionate capital contribution.

  44. Trustees of the Property of Cummins v Cummins [2006] 227 CLR 278.

  45. Baumgartner v Baumgartner [1987] 164 CLR 137.

  46. As recited in evidence. See Baumgartner v Baumgartner [1985] 2 NSWLR 406, 436, 437.

  47. Jones v Kernott [2012] 1 AC 776, 785.

  48. Ibid, 794.

  49. Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432, 465.

  50. Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638.

  51. Fowler v Barron [2008] EWCA Civ 377.

  52. Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583.

  53. Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886.

  54. See, eg, Mr Lankow’s failed attempt to argue that his partner had received ample benefit from her contributions, including a home, cars, holidays and a comfortable lifestyle: Lankow v Rose [1995] 1 NZLR 277, 285.

  55. [2008] EWCA Civ 377 (‘Fowler’).

  56. Ibid, [7].

  57. Ibid, [47].

  58. Ibid, [42].

  59. Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432, 459.

  60. Fowler v Barron [2008] EWCA Civ 377.

  61. Fowler v Barron [2008] EWCA Civ 377.

  62. [2011] 1 SCR 269, 304.

  63. Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583, 611.

  64. Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777, 796, citing Button v Button [1968] 1 WLR 457, 462.

  65. Murdoch v Murdoch [1975] 1 SCR 423, 443.

  66. Ibid, 444.

  67. Ibid, 437–8.

  68. Pettkus v Becker [1980] 2 SCR 834.

  69. Ibid, 853.

  70. See, eg, Seguin v Vanasse, reported in Kerr v Baranow [2011] 1 SCR 269.

  71. Pettkus v Becker [1980] 2 SCR 834, 850.

  72. Lankow v Rose [1995] 1 NZLR 277.

  73. Ibid, 284.

  74. Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317.

  75. Murdoch v Murdoch [1975] 1 SCR 423. Although the 2006 Australian High Court decision in Cummins is considered somewhat regressive: Trustees of the Property of Cummins v Cummins (2006) 227 CLR 278; Sarmas (2012).

  76. Hayward, Andrew. 2013. Judicial discretion in ownership disputes over the family home. PhD Thesis, Durham University, 33.

  77. Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137; Pettkus v Becker [1980] 2 SCR 834; Lloyd’s Bank v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107; Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317; Eves v Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1338.

  78. Notably, in Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137, Pettkus v Becker [1980] 2 SCR 834 and Lankow v Rose [1995] 1 NZLR 277.

  79. Eg in Seguin v Vanasse, where the parties’ contribution to the mutual endeavour was considered on equal terms. Reported in Kerr v Baranow [2011] 1 SCR 269.

  80. Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137.

  81. Green v Green (1989) 17 NSWLR 343; Lloyd’s Bank v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107, 130.

References

  • Arendt, Hannah. 1998. The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonthuys, Elsje. 2013. Equality and difference: fertile tensions or fatal contradictions for advancing the interests of disadvantaged. In The ashgate research companion to feminist legal theory, ed. Margaret Davies and Vanessa E. Munro, 85–104. Oxford: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoyne, Carole, and Stefanie Sonnenberg. 2009. Financial practices in cohabiting heterosexual couples: a perspectives from economic psychology. In Sharing lives, dividing assets: an inter-disciplinary study, ed. Joanna Miles and Rebecca Probert, 89–108. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elshtain, Jean Bethke. 1982. Introduction: toward a theory of the family. In The family in political thought, ed. Jean Bethke Elshtain, 7–30. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estin, Ann Laquer. 2005. Can families be efficient? A feminist appraisal. In Feminism confronts homo economicus, ed. Martha Albertson Fineman and Terence Dougherty, 423–449. London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, Martha Albertson. 1995. The neutered mother, the sexual family. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flood, Jennifer. 2011. Share the wealth? Kerr v Baranow and the “joint family venture”. Canadian Journal of Family Law 27: 361–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galloway, Kate. 2015. Marriage and equality: What’s love got to do with it? Alternative Law Journal 40 (4): 225–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graycar, Reg. 1992. Women’s work: who cares? Sydney Law Review 14: 86–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graycar, Reg, and Jenny Morgan. 2004. Thinking about equality. UNSW Law Journal 27: 833–839.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graycar, Reg, and Jenny Morgan. 2005. Feminist legal theory and understanding of equity: one step forward or two steps back. Thomas Jefferson Law Review 28: 399–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graycar, Reg, and Jenny Morgan. 2010. Equality unmodified. In Sex discrimination in uncertain times, ed. Margaret Thornton, 175–196. Canberra: ANU E Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, Andrew. 2012. Family property and the process of ‘familialisation’ of property law. Child and Family Law Quarterly 24: 284–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, Andrew. 2013. Judicial discretion in ownership disputes over the family home. PhD Thesis, Durham University.

  • Kessler, Laura T. 2005. Is there agency in dependency? Expanding the feminist justifications for restructuring wage work. In Feminism confronts homo economicus, ed. Martha Albertson Fineman and Terence Dougherty, 373–400. London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krouse, Richard W. 1982. Patriarchal liberalism and beyond: from John Stuart Mill to Harriet Taylor. In The family in political thought, ed. Jean Bethke Elshtain, 145–172. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leckey, Robert. 2002. Relational contract and other models of marriage. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 40 (1): 1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macneil, Ian R. 1974. The many futures of contracts. Southern California Law Review 47: 691–816.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macneil, Ian R. 1981. Economic analysis of contractual relations: its shortfalls and the need for a ‘rich classificatory apparatus’. Northwestern University Law Review 75: 1018–1063.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macneil, Ian R. 1986. Exchange revisited: individual utility and social solidarity. Ethics 96 (3): 567–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayes, Elizabeth. 2005. Private property, the private subject, and women: can women truly be the owners of capital? In Feminism confronts homo economicus, ed. Martha Albertson Fineman and Terence Dougherty, 117–130. London: Cornell University Press.

  • Mee, John. 2011. Burns v Burns: The villain of the piece? In Landmark cases in family law, ed. R. Probert, J. Herring, and S. Gilmore, 175–198. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody-Adams, Michele M. 1997. The social construction and reconstruction of care. In Sex, preference and family: essays on law and nature, ed. David M. Estlund and Martha C. Nussbaum, 3–16. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okin, Susan Moller. 1989. Justice, gender, and the family. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, Frances E. 1983. The family and the market: a study of ideology and legal reform. The Harvard Law Review 96 (7): 1497–1578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl, Jan. 1989. Money and marriage. Basingstoke: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pateman, Carole. 1988. The sexual contract. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pateman, Carole. 1989. The disorder of women. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Probert, Rebecca. 2001. Trusts and the modern woman—establishing an interest in the family home. Child and Family Law Quarterly 13 (3): 275–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Probert, Rebecca. 2005. Land, law and ex-lovers: Cox v Jones. Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 69: 168–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Probert, Rebecca. 2007. Equality in the family home? Stack v Dowden. Feminist Legal Studies 15: 341–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotherham, Craig. 2002. Proprietary remedies in context. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, Michael J. 1998. Liberalism and the limits of justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarmas, Lisa. 2012. Trusts, third parties and the family home: six years since Cummins and confusion still reigns. Melbourne University Law Review 36: 216–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seddon, N.C., R.A. Bigwood, and M.P. Ellinghaus. 2012. Cheshire and Fifoot law of contract. Sydney: LexisNexis Butterworths.

  • Shanley, Mary Lyndon. 2008. Justmarriage: on the public importance of private unions. In Marriage and cohabitation: regulating intimacy, affection and care, ed. Alison Diduck, 285–297. Oxford: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silbaugh, Katharine B. 2005. Commodification and women’s household labor. In Feminism confronts homo economicus, ed. Martha Albertson Fineman and Terence Dougherty, 338–372. London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloan, Brian. 2015. Keeping up with the Jones case: establishing constructive trusts in “sole legal owner” scenarios. Legal Studies 35 (2): 226–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Summers, Anne. 2016. Damned whores and god’s police. Sydney: New South Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Sharon. 2018. Feminist relational contract theory: a new model for family property agreements. Journal of Law and Society 45 (4): 617–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Sharon, Lydia Hayes, Daniel Newman, and Carole Pateman. 2018. The sexual contract 30 years on: a conversation with Carole Pateman. Feminist Legal Studies 26: 93–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogler, Carolyn. 2009. Managing money in intimate relationships: similarities and differences between cohabiting and married couples. In Sharing lives, dividing assets: an inter-disciplinary study, ed. Joanna Miles and Rebecca Probert, 61–88. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, Michael. 1983. Spheres of justice. Oxford: Martin Robertson & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wightman, John. 2000. Intimate relationships, relational contract theory and the reach of contract. Feminist Legal Studies 8 (1): 93–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, Simone. 1998. Constructive trusts over the family home: Lessons to be learned from other commonwealth jurisdictions? Legal Studies 18 (3): 369–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, Simone. 2005. Trust(s) and intention in resolving disputes over the shared home. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 56: 105–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, Simone. 2007. Would you “care” to share your home? Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 58: 268–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, Simone. 2012. Shared commitment, interdependency and property relations: a socio-legal project for cohabitation. Child and Family Law Quarterly 24: 60–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yodanis, Carrie, and Sean Lauer. 2014. Is marriage individualized? What couples actually do. Journal of Family Theory & Review 6 (2): 184–197.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

    Kate Galloway

Authors
  1. Kate Galloway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kate Galloway.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Galloway, K. The Role of Pateman’s Sexual Contract in Beneficial Interests in Property. Fem Leg Stud 27, 263–285 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-019-09413-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-019-09413-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation