As we explained here back in August, the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee, which holds Government to account on equality law and policy, published a report recommending that cohabiting couples be given the right to apply for financial relief upon relationship breakdown.

The Government has now responded to the report.

The report recommended that a scheme of scheme of rights for cohabitants that was recommended by the Law Commission in 2007 be implemented.

The Government has rejected this recommendation.

The Government says that the scheme should be looked at afresh, and that in any event the Government is intending to review the law on marriage and financial provision upon divorce, and any changes to the law relating to cohabitation should wait until the outcome of that review.

The report also recommended that the Government should conduct a national public awareness campaign to highlight the legal distinctions between getting married, forming a civil partnership, or choosing to live together as cohabiting partners, as the Committee was concerned that many cohabitants believe that they have the same rights as married couples.

The Government agrees that it is important that people are aware of the legal distinctions between getting married, forming a civil partnership and living together as cohabitants.

However, it said that the Department for Education’s statutory guidance on relationships education includes the need for schools to ensure that pupils should be aware of what marriage is, including its legal status. In view of this, the Government does not consider a national campaign necessary, but says it will review the information currently available to the public in this sphere.

The Women and Equalities Committee Chair Caroline Nokes MP has criticised the Government’s response, saying:

“It is deeply disappointing that the Government has closed off the possibility of better legal protections for cohabiting partners for the foreseeable future.

“In doing so it relies on flawed logic. Weddings law and financial provision on divorce are wholly separate areas of family law. There is no reason the Government should not prioritise law reform for cohabiting partners alongside this.

“Moreover, changes to weddings and divorce law could take many years. This response effectively kicks the issue into the long grass and risks leaving a growing number of cohabitants financially vulnerable.

“The Committee welcomes the Government’s recognition that there must be better guidance on cohabitants’ rights. We have agreed to follow up on the committed actions in the coming months.”

As we explained in our previous post, if you have been in a cohabiting relationship your rights will be very limited. If you do wish to make a claim in respect of property or on behalf of a child then you should seek the advice of an expert family lawyer. We can find you an expert that works with you on our digital platform. For more information, call us on 020 3904 0506, or click here, and fill in the form.

*          *          *

Family Law Cafe’s accessible team of legal experts from various disciplines expedites the customer’s case and keeps them informed and in control 24/7 through a unique and secure online portal. Family Law Cafe is your start-point for getting matters sorted with strategy, support and security.

Image: Public Domain, via Piqsels

The House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee, which holds Government to account on equality law and policy, has published an important report calling for reform of the law relating to cohabitation.

The report points out that since 1996 the number of couples in the UK living together as cohabitants has more than doubled to 3.6 million, and now represents around one in five couples living together.

Despite these numbers, says the report, a lack of legal protections means that, upon relationship breakdown, the financially weaker partner has no automatic rights to the family home, or indeed to any form of financial support from their former partner.

The MPs also expressed concern at the problems that can occur on the death of a partner in a cohabiting relationship, including difficulties accessing a survivor’s pension and even keeping the family home.  

And one of the biggest issues that the report found was the common misconception that cohabiting couples automatically gain rights equal to a marriage or civil partnership – the so-called ‘common law marriage myth’.

The report points out that a 2019 British Social Attitudes Survey showed that almost half of the total population of England and Wales wrongly assumed that cohabitants living together form a ‘common law marriage’.

This erroneous belief, says the report, can have ‘significant consequences’, with many falsely believing they have legal protections which turn out to be non-existent.

The report makes three key recommendations to address these issues:

1. That the Government should implement an opt-out cohabitation scheme, as was proposed by the Law Commission in 2007. The scheme would give basic legal rights to cohabitants upon relationship breakdown, where they had had a child together or had lived together for a specified number of years. The couple would be able, if they wished, to opt out of the scheme.

2. That the Government urgently launch a public information campaign to highlight the legal distinctions between marriage, civil partnership, and choosing to live as cohabiting partners.

3. That cohabitants be given similar rights to married couples and civil partners upon the death of a partner.

Commenting upon the report the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the Rt Hon Caroline Nokes MP, said: 

“The reality of modern relationships is that many of us choose – for a vast number of reasons – not to get married, even when in a committed, long-term relationship. This number is ever growing, and it is high time that the Government recognised this shift in social norms, which has been taking place for well over 30 years.  

“The law has been left decades behind, as far as cohabitation is concerned, and this is leaving financially vulnerable individuals in precarious situations upon relationship breakdown or the death of a partner. It is completely unfair that these individuals have inferior protections to their married or civilly partnered peers. Deciding not to marry is a valid choice, and not one which should be penalised in law.”

It is indeed high time that these important reforms were implemented. Let us hope that the Government gives the report the attention it deserves.

Meanwhile, if you have been in a cohabiting relationship your rights will be very limited. If you do wish to make a claim in respect of property or on behalf of a child then you should seek the advice of an expert family lawyer. We can find you an expert that works with you on our digital platform. For more information, call us on 020 3904 0506, or click here, and fill in the form.

*          *          *

Family Law Cafe’s accessible team of legal experts from various disciplines expedites the customer’s case and keeps them informed and in control 24/7 through a unique and secure online portal. Family Law Cafe is your start-point for getting matters sorted with strategy, support and security.

Image: Public Domain, via Piqsels

The Office for National Statistics (‘ONS’) has released its latest figures for marriages in England and Wales, for the year 2017.

Amongst the main points revealed by the statistics were that there were 242,842 marriages in England and Wales in 2017, a decrease of 2.8% from 2016; that marriage rates for opposite-sex couples in 2017 were the lowest on record, with 21.2 marriages per 1,000 unmarried men and 19.5 marriages per 1,000 unmarried women; and that nearly 9 in 10 (88%) of opposite-sex couples cohabited before getting married in 2017 – this proportion has steadily increased over the last 20 years from 69% in 1997 to 81% in 2007, and is in line with the increasing level of cohabitation seen more generally.

Kanak Ghosh of the Vital Statistics Outputs Branch at the ONS commented:

“Marriage rates for opposite-sex couples are now at the lowest level on record. This continues a gradual long-term decline seen since the early 1970s, with numbers falling by a third over the past 40 years.”

The decline in the popularity of marriage, and the accompanying increase in the popularity of cohabitation, clearly demonstrates the need to give basic legal rights to cohabitants when their relationship breaks down.

As the law stands at present, cohabitants cannot seek any sort of financial support for themselves from their former partners, and cannot make any property claim, save in very limited circumstances. This means that every year thousands of people are suffering unnecessary financial hardship following the breakdown of their relationship.

For example, a woman who lived with her partner in his home and had a family with him may find herself homeless and penniless at the end of a long relationship, despite spending those years looking after the home and bringing up the family.

Campaigners for rights for cohabitants are not asking for them to be given the same rights as a married person on divorce. Instead, they propose that they be given basic rights, to prevent the sort of hardship referred to above.

For example, in 2007 the Law Commission recommended that cohabitants who had had a child together or had lived together for a minimum period should be able to apply to a court for ‘financial relief’, provided that they had made ‘qualifying contributions’ to the relationship, as a result of which the other party had obtained a benefit or they had suffered an economic disadvantage. Couples could specifically agree to disapply the scheme. Unfortunately, in 2011 the Government announced that it would not take forward these recommendations.

However, in the ensuing years the marriage rate has continued to decline, as demonstrated by these latest figures. More and more couples are choosing to live together without getting married. Surely, the time has now come to give them basic financial rights on relationship breakdown?

You can find the ONS statistical bulletin here.

*      *      *

If you have been in a cohabiting relationship then, as indicated above, your rights will be very limited. If you do wish to make a claim in respect of property or on behalf of a child then you should seek the advice of an expert family lawyer. Family Law Café can put you in touch with an expert – call us on 020 3904 0506, or click here, and fill in the form.

*          *          *

Family Law Cafe surrounds and supports the customer with both legal and pastoral care, end to end, from top barristers to case workers to therapists and mediators, to help the customer get the best possible result with the minimum stress. Family Law Cafe is your start-point for getting matters sorted with strategy, support and security.

Photo by Luis Tosta on Unsplash

The latest annual statistical bulletin giving estimates of population by legal marital status and cohabitation status by age and sex for England and Wales, for the year 2018, has been published by the Office for National Statistics (‘ONS’).

The main points were:

• The proportion of the population aged 16 years and over in England and Wales who are married has continued to decline in 2018 to 50.5%, down from 51.0% in 2017.

• Whilst the proportion of the population under age 70 years who are married has declined, the proportion aged 70 years and over who are married has increased from 50.3% in 2008 to 55.8% in 2018.

• The number of people aged 16 years and over who are single and have never married has continued to increase, rising by 369,000 from 2017, to a total of 16.7 million people (35.0%) in 2018.

• The number of people aged 16 years and over who live with a partner and have never married has continued to increase, rising by 1.3 million people since 2008, to a total of 5.0 million (10.4%) in 2018.

A statistician at the ONS commented:

“In England and Wales, around half of the population aged 16 years and over were married in 2018. The proportion of people married has been in decline over the last decade, while the single population has been increasing.

“However, those in their 70s and beyond are seeing a different trend where, despite a modest rise in the divorced population, the proportion of people aged 70 years and over who are married has been increasing at a greater rate.”

These figures show a clear and continued trend away from marriage, and towards cohabitation, particularly amongst the younger population. Why might this be? Could it be that they increasingly see marriage as ‘old fashioned’? Or could it be that they simply don’t want to make the commitment that marriage entails?

Whatever your reasons may be for choosing a particular living arrangement, it is important that you know your rights. Family Law Cafe can advise you. To book a free initial consultation with us click the green button at the top of this page and fill in the form, or call us on 020 3904 0506.

The statistical bulletin can be found on the ONS’s website, here.

  • *          *          *

Family Law Cafe’s accessible team of legal experts from various disciplines expedites the customer’s case and keeps them informed and in control 24/7 through a unique and secure online portal.

Image: ‘Just Married’, by Stewart Black, licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Mandy Gray was married to William Randall (‘Randy’) Work for eighteen years, until the marriage came to an end in 2013. When they met they had no significant financial resources, but during the course of the marriage Mr Work amassed a fortune worth about £180 million. The parties were divorced and in 2015 the High Court ordered that the assets of the marriage should be divided equally, thus Miss Gray received some £90 million. Mr Work appealed against that order, but his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in 2017.

After the marriage broke down Miss Gray began an affair with her physical therapist. During the course of the affair the couple acquired various luxury assets, including an Italian villa and four ‘supercars’. The affair came to an end in January, and now Miss Gray is suing her former boyfriend for the value of the assets, said to be worth more than £20 million. Miss Gray claims that she is the sole owner of the assets, whereas her boyfriend claims that they are owned jointly. The case is being heard by His Honour Judge Rawlings in the High Court in London.

Until (or unless) the case is finally heard and officially reported, we cannot speculate upon the details of the financial arrangements between Miss Gray and her boyfriend. However, the case does illustrate the need to seek proper legal advice before entering into any significant financial arrangement with your cohabitee. It should be made quite clear who owns what, and if necessary the parties can enter into a ‘cohabitation agreement’, setting out how their assets will be owned, and how they will be divided in the event that the relationship should break down (under current English law, assets of cohabiting couples will usually belong to whoever owns them, unless it is agreed otherwise).

If you are in a cohabiting relationship, or about to enter such a relationship, and require advice regarding how to protect your financial assets, then Family Law Cafe can help. To book a free initial consultation with us click the green button at the top of this page and fill in the form, or call us on 020 3904 0506.

  • *          *          *

Family Law Cafe offers a modern, agile and compassionate approach to family law, giving you a helping hand when you need it and guiding you through the complexities of this difficult and stressful area.

Image of Ferrari 458 by Nan Palmero from San Antonio, TX, USA [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

Last week the National Centre for Social Research published findings from this year’s British Social Attitudes Survey which revealed that almost half of people in England and Wales mistakenly believe that unmarried couples who live together have a common law marriage, and enjoy the same rights as couples that are legally married.

The findings showed that 46% of those surveyed were under the impression that cohabiting couples form a common law marriage, a figure that remains largely unchanged over the last fourteen years, despite a significant increase in the number of cohabiting couples in that time. And people who have children were found to be significantly more likely to believe in common law marriage: 55% of households with children thought that common law marriage exists.

There is, of course, no such thing as a common law marriage. Merely living together does not give the parties the same rights as those who are married. As a result, the more vulnerable party can suffer severe financial hardship should a cohabiting couple separate, for example where they have interrupted their career to raise children, and where the home is owned by the other party.

It is therefore important that you do not fall into the trap of believing that just because you live with someone you automatically become their ‘common law’ spouse, and acquire the same rights as a married person.

For further information on what rights a person has upon cohabitation breakdown, see this post. If you would like specific advice as to what you can do to protect yourself if you cohabit, or as to what you can do on the breakdown of a cohabiting relationship, book an initial consultation with us by clicking the green button at the top of this page and filling in the form, or call us on 020 3904 0506.

*          *          *

Family Law Cafe surrounds and supports the customer with both legal and pastoral care, end to end, from top barristers to case workers to therapists and mediators, to help the customer get the best possible result with the minimum stress.

Image: Solihull Register Office, by Elliott Brown, licensed under CC BY 2.0.

The Supreme Court has held that a mother should be entitled to widowed parent’s allowance following the death of her partner, despite the fact that she was not married to him. The ruling has been criticised in some quarters for eroding the difference between marriage and cohabitation.

In the case Siobhan McLaughlin had lived in Northern Ireland with her partner John Adams  for 23 years, until he died on 28 January 2014. They did not marry because Mr Adams had promised his first wife that he would never remarry. They had four children, who were aged 19 years, 17 years, 13 years and 11 years when their father died. Mr Adams had made sufficient National Insurance contributions for Ms McLaughlin to be able to claim widowed parent’s allowance had she been married to him.

Ms McLaughlin’s claim for widowed parent’s allowance was refused by the Northern Ireland Department for Communities, on the basis that the allowance could only be claimed by someone who was married to, or the civil partner of, the deceased. She applied for judicial review of that decision, on the ground that the relevant legislation was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’). That claim succeeded in the High Court in Belfast, but a subsequent government challenge to that ruling was upheld in the Court of Appeal.

Ms McLaughlin appealed to the Supreme Court, which allowed her appeal, by a majority of four to one. The Supreme Court also made a declaration that the legislation precluding any entitlement to widowed parent’s allowance by a surviving unmarried partner of the deceased was incompatible with the ECHR. It will be for the relevant legislature to decide whether or how the law should be changed.

As indicated, the ruling has been criticised by some for eroding the difference between marriage and cohabitation. However, the majority of the Supreme Court justices found that the purpose of the allowance was not just to assist the survivor but also the children. Giving one of the majority judgments Lady Hale said:

“The allowance exists because of the responsibilities of the deceased and the survivor towards their children. Those responsibilities are the same whether or not they are married to or in a civil partnership with one another. The purpose of the allowance is to diminish the financial loss caused to families with children by the death of a parent. That loss is the same whether or not the parents are married to or in a civil partnership with one another.”

The couple’s children, she said, should not suffer the disadvantage of the allowance not being paid because their parents chose not to marry. And Lord Mance, also with the majority, said:

“Bearing in mind that the main purpose of widowed parent allowance is to secure the continuing well-being of any child of a survivor, there seems in this context to be no tenable distinction, and indeed manifest incongruity in the difference in treatment, between a child of a couple who are married or civil partners and the child of a couple who are not.

“In a large number of cases the effect would also be to discriminate against a child who was illegitimate.”

He went on:

” A policy in favour of marriage or civil partnership may constitute justification for differential treatment, when children are not involved. But it cannot do so in relation to a benefit targeted at the needs and well-being of children.”

Thus the primary basis of the Supreme Court decision is not to put cohabitants on a par with married couples, but rather to ensure that children are not discriminated against simply because their parents chose not to marry. The effect of the decision may have been to remove one small difference between the rights of cohabitants and those of married couples, but it can hardly be said to have eroded the difference between marriage and cohabitation.

You can read the full judgment of the Supreme Court here.

* * *

Family Law Cafe offers a modern, agile and compassionate approach to family law, giving you a helping hand when you need it and guiding you through the complexities of this difficult and stressful area.

Image of Lady Hale reproduced from the Supreme Court website, Crown copyright, licensed under the Open Government Licence.

In a speech given at the Law School, University of Edinburgh, on 20 March the President of the Family Division Sir James Munby outlined his views on the future of family courts, and reform of family law.

The speech, entitled Changing families: family law yesterday, today and tomorrow – a view from south of the Border, began with an outline of the history of family law in England and Wales since Victorian times. Sir James then moved on to what he called “perhaps the greatest challenge facing the family courts”. This, he said, was the need for family courts to become problem-solving courts, dealing with the underlying issues behind children disputes, rather than just deciding what should happen to the child in future. What was urgently required, he explained, was:

“…a fundamental re-balancing of the family court towards what ought to be its true role as a problem-solving court, engaging the therapeutic and other support systems that so many children and parents need.”

Sir James then concluded his speech “by examining a few of the parts of family law most pressingly in need of statutory reform.” These included the introduction of property rights for cohabitants, no-fault divorce, reform of the law relating to financial remedies on divorce, reform of the rules about access to and reporting of family cases (to counter the charge that we operate a system of secret justice), and giving judges the power to prevent  the cross-examination in person by alleged perpetrators of domestic violence of their alleged victims.

Family Law Cafe welcomes all of these ideas, and hopes that they come to fruition in the near future.

You can read the full speech here.

  • *          *          *

Family Law Cafe offers a modern, agile and compassionate approach to family law, giving you a helping hand when you need it and guiding you through the complexities of this difficult and stressful area.

Image of Old College of Edinburgh University by Kim Traynor (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

This week is Cohabitation Awareness Week, a campaign by national family justice organisation Resolution to raise awareness of the lack of legal protection upon separation for cohabiting couples.

As we have explained here previously, compared to married couples, cohabiting couples have very few legal rights when their relationship breaks down. There is no such thing as a ‘common law marriage’, giving cohabiting couples similar rights to married couples. However, a poll commissioned by Resolution found that two-thirds of people in cohabiting relationships are unaware of this. Considering that there are now some 3.3 million cohabiting couple families in this country, that amounts to a very large number of people who are ignorant as to their lack of rights.

Commenting upon the poll Resolution chair Nigel Shepherd said:

“Today’s poll shows that many still believe in the myth that they will get financial rights through ‘common-law marriage’. This means millions of cohabiting couples are unaware that they don’t have automatic claims, for example on the property they live in, if they split up. This makes it less likely they’ll take steps to protect themselves.”

What steps can cohabitees take to protect themselves? They could enter into a cohabitation agreement, setting out what should happen to their property and money should their relationship break down. If they acquire a property then they should ensure that it is owned jointly and, if it is owned in unequal shares, they can enter into a declaration of trust, setting out what share each party owns.

However, most cohabiting couples do not enter into separation agreements, and very often the property they live in is owned by only one party.

There is a clear need for the law to be changed to provide basic rights to cohabiting couples should they separate. Family Law Cafe therefore joins with Resolution’s call for reform to extend rights to cohabiting couples. As Nigel Shepherd also said: “Society has changed – it’s time for our laws to catch up.”

*          *          *

Family Law Cafe surrounds and supports the customer with both legal and pastoral care, end to end, from top barristers to case workers to therapists and mediators, to help the customer get the best possible result with the minimum stress.

Image: Resolution

A Private Members’ Bill has been introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, that aims to provide financial protection for people who have lived together as a couple as cohabitants.

Amongst the provisions contained in the Bill is one allowing for a former cohabitant to apply to a court for a ‘financial settlement order’. Such an order could be applied for if the cohabitants have children, or if they have lived together as a couple for three years. The application must be made within 24 months of the cohabitants ceasing to live together, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

The Bill provides that a financial settlement order can be made if the court is satisfied either that the respondent to the application has retained a benefit, or that the applicant has suffered an economic disadvantage, as a result of “qualifying contributions” the applicant has made. A “qualifying contribution” is “any financial or other contribution made by the applicant to the parties’ shared lives or to the welfare of members of their families during the parties’ cohabitation or in contemplation of the parties’ cohabitation or likely to be made by the applicant following its breakdown”.

In deciding whether to make a financial settlement order the court must take into account various factors, such as the income and financial needs of the parties. The order can take several different forms, including the payment of a lump sum, the transfer of property or pension sharing.

The Bill also provides that the parties can agree to opt-out of its protection, by entering into a written opt-out agreement.

The Bill had its first reading in the House of Lords on the 5th of July and will have its second reading on a date to be announced. It should be noted that less parliamentary time is given to Private Members’ Bills, and as a result only a minority of them actually become law (this Bill has been introduced previously, but not progressed).

The full text of the Bill can be read here.

For a summary of the rights that cohabitants presently have when their relationship breaks down, see this post.

Image of House of Lords Chamber by UK Parliament [CC BY 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

The Office for National Statistics (‘ONS’) has today published statistics for the number of divorces in England and Wales in 2015.

The main points are :

• There were 101,055 divorces of opposite sex couples in 2015, a decrease of 9.1% compared with 2014 and a decline of 34% from a recent peak in 2003.

• There were 22 divorces of same sex couples in 2015; marriages and divorces of same sex couples have only been possible in England and Wales since 29 March 2014.

• The male divorce rate for opposite sex couples in 2015 decreased to 8.5 men divorcing per 1,000 married males; 8.6% lower than 2014 and 37% lower than a recent peak in the divorce rate in 2004.

• The female divorce rate for opposite sex couples in 2015 decreased to 8.5 women divorcing per 1,000 married females; 8.6% lower than 2014 and 36% lower than 2004.

• The divorce rate among opposite sex couples was highest among both men and women aged 40 to 44.

The ONS commented: “The fall in divorces between 2003 and 2009 is consistent with a decline in the number of marriages over the same period; the decrease in marriages may be due to the increasing number of couples choosing to cohabit rather than enter into marriage. Following a small rise in the number of divorces in 2009, there was a period of relative stability between 2010 and 2012, divorces continued to decline between 2013 and 2015.”

The full ONS statistical bulletin can be found here.

Responding to today’s release of divorce statistics by the ONS, Nigel Shepherd, Chair of Resolution said:

“Today’s statistics show a fall in both divorce numbers and the divorce rate. There could be a number of reasons for this. One feature we have seen historically is that when families are struggling financially, many delay separating until they have more certainty over finances.

“The fall in divorce numbers correlates to a decline of marriages, and we know that cohabiting couples are the fastest growing family type in the UK, currently making up nearly 10% of the population. Today’s figures are further evidence that cohabiting couples are a major feature of our modern society: sadly our current laws are failing them.

“Rather than continuing to ignore the millions of cohabiting families in the UK, the new Government must reform the law to provide some basic legal protection and fair outcomes at a time of a cohabiting couple’s separation”.

Image: Arrow down, by Michael Pedersen, licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Resolution, the association of family lawyers, has made four proposals for the political parties ahead of the general election, which it claims “will make a huge, positive difference to the lives of the hundreds of thousands of people that separate each year”.

In a letter to each of the major parties, Resolution Chair Nigel Shepherd calls on them to make a commitment in the next Parliament to:

1. Allow couples to divorce without blame.
2. Give cohabiting couples, who make up 10% of the population, some basic legal rights.
3. Ensure there is fair access to the family justice system.
4. Give people more financial clarity on divorce.

Mr Shepherd said: “It’s time to end the blame game. A new Parliament is a perfect opportunity for politicians to finally act on no fault divorce, regardless of the outcome on June 8th. This is why I have written to all major parties calling on them to make a clear commitment to modernise family law on this and other key issues for our members, such as rights for cohabiting couples, fair access to the justice system and financial clarity on divorce.”

The letter sets out Resolution’s proposals in each of the four areas.

As to divorce, it says that the current law “leads to unnecessary conflict, makes an amicable separation less likely, and reduces the chances of reaching agreement on children and financial issues.”

As to cohabitation, it says: “The reform Resolution proposes would not give cohabiting couples equal legal status to married couples. But it would provide a legal safety net for those cohabitants who currently – wrongly – believe they have legal rights.”

As to access to justice the letter says: “It is our belief that funding should be provided for free initial advice for people of limited means, to help them identify their options on separation and divorce, helping them to put the needs of any children first, and ensuring they are better informed at the start of the process. This would mean those who go on to represent themselves are better informed about their legal position from the outset.”

Finally, as to financial clarity on divorce the letter says: “Divorce law relating to finances is complex and difficult to understand. Outcomes can be difficult to predict, even for legal professionals. Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which determines how money is divided up on divorce, has fundamentally remained unchanged for the last 40 years. The concern is that people separate with little or no understanding of the financial consequences of their break up, making it more difficult for them to reach agreement and placing a greater burden on the court system.”

Family Law Cafe agrees with all of these proposals, and hopes that the parties will take note.

Image: Polling station (way in), by Paul Albertella, licensed under CC BY 2.0.0.

Cohabiting couples do not have the same rights as married couples when their relationship breaks down (there is no such thing as a “common law marriage”). In particular, they cannot ask the court for maintenance for themselves or to adjust ownership of property, in the same way as can be done in a financial settlement following divorce.

So what legal rights do cohabitees have?

The first thing to say is that cohabitees have similar rights to married couples in respect of arrangements for children and child maintenance. They can apply to a court for an order setting out the arrangements, such as with whom the children should live, and they can apply to the Child Maintenance Service for child support maintenance for the children.

If there are any children then the parent looking after them can also apply to the court for an order for financial provision for them. This provision can take various forms, but the most common type of order is one allowing the parent and child to occupy a property, such as the property where the parties lived together, until such time as the child grows up or ceases full-time education. Note that such an order will not have any bearing upon the ownership of the property. Accordingly, if the property belongs solely to the other parent, then it will revert to them when the order has run its term.

The general rule regarding property on cohabitation breakdown is that it will remain with whoever owns it. Accordingly if for example the house in which the parties lived is owned then what happens to it depends upon what the deeds say. Thus if the deeds say it is owned jointly in equal shares then each party will be entitled to half. On the other hand if the deeds say it belongs to just one of the parties, then that party will be entitled to the entire property. What the deeds say will be followed unless the other party can successfully show that they are entitled to a share, or a greater share, for example because there was an agreement to that effect. Such claims can be very difficult to prove.

If necessary a party claiming a share in a property can apply to a court for an order that the property be sold, so that they can realise that share.

The above is only a very brief summary of what can be a very complex area of law. If you require further details Family Law Café can help. To contact us click the Contact link above and fill in the form, or call us on 020 3904 0506.

Image: Law by Woody Hibbard, licensed under CC BY 2.0.