Personal finance: Could unmarried ex-couples claim? Read the expert view LINDA Walker, a solicitor at Tods Murray, gives two examples where there may or may not be a financial claim involving an unmarried ex-couple who had lived together. Then she outlines why there may now be a precedent. 1 Tom has no children, no wife, no girlfriend and a restricted social life. He earns a good salary though. Each month he puts his surplus monthly salary into an investment account for his retirement. He meets the love of his life (or so he thought), Mary, and they move in together a short time later. Tom's joining of Mary's exclusive golf club, three overseas trips a year and their shared love of fine dining uses up his monthly salary and he is persuaded to stop paying money into his investment account. After they live together for around six years, his investment is worth almost £70,000 less than it would have been had he continued to pay into it in the manner he had been before meeting Mary. Both Tom and Mary have benefited from the golf, the food and the holidays but he has clearly suffered an economic disadvantage by stopping the payments into the investment. Should Tom be able to make a claim against Mary? Is this claim for £70,000? 2 Jean is a keen gambler and National Lottery player. She plays twice a week, always by direct debit and always the same numbers. She meets Charles, a frequent attendee of Gamblers Anonymous. He asks Jean to move in with him but only if she quits the gambling and stops playing the National Lottery. She accepts and they live together for ten years, sharing living costs and the like, before they split up. In the eighth year of their relationship, Jean's numbers come up. She would have won £7 million had she continued to play the lottery as she had done before moving in with Charles and been persuaded to give up her gambling. She has been disadvantaged. Clearly it was in the interests of Charles, both for his addiction and for the furtherance of their relationship, but does Mary have a claim against Charles and is the claim for £7m? These scenarios may seem far-fetched, but are they really that far removed from Ms Gow's claim in Gow v Grant? In all three cases one party has benefited from decisions made by the other. Mr Grant benefited because Ms Gow looked after the house and paid for various expenses; Mary got the holidays, dinners out etc; Charles shared his living costs and had emotional support with his addiction. The other party (Ms Gow; Tom; Jean) has been disadvantaged economically in the interests of the other party and their relationship. In all three scenarios the extent of the economic disadvantage can be calculated. In one it was the increase in value of a house, in another the increase in value of an investment account and in the third the winning of the lottery. The first has been given judicial approval. The third seems very far fetched, but what about the middle one? Where should the line be drawn?