header-logo header-logo

16 March 2007 / David Allison
Issue: 7264 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

All change?

Cohabitants have waited too long for justice, says
David Allison

The law has been letting down cohabitants for much too long. It was over 20 years ago that the injustices suffered by so many cohabitants was highlighted in Burns v Burns [1984] 1 All ER 244, [1984] 2 WLR 582. Mrs Burns (so called) lived with Mr Burns for 19 years and they had two children. They lived as a family and pooled their resources but, when their relationship broke down, Mrs Burns was entitled to nothing. She was not entitled to an interest in their home because the court could not find evidence of a common intention of joint ownership, either by agreement or by virtue of financial contributions to the purchase price of the property or the mortgage. The court could not, therefore, construe a trust in her favour. Because she was not married, the court did not have the jurisdiction to consider what she might reasonably need or expect.

Although the number of people living in cohabiting relationships has continued to grow the law

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll