Yes & no!
If the property is in the sole name of one party then ostensibly it remains that person's property on separation, unless the other party can establish that there was a common intention that they would be entitled to a share in the property.
How do they do this? Well this may have been agreed in a simple conversation, or in writing between the parties at some time (proving it tends to be the problem!) if the other party directly contributed to the purchase price the courts are likely to accept that at least part of the property should have been in their name; and finally if there has been an understanding between the parties and the non-owner has acted to their detriment as a result (eg contributed to mortgage repayments, paid household bills, or, perhaps, sold their own property) then the courts may agree they should share in the property.
Does she have a solicitor?