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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll