header-logo header-logo

17 November 2017 / David Burrows
Issue: 7770 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Cohabitation in 2017 (Pt 2)

nlj_7770_burrows

In the second of a series of articles, David Burrows explores the complex law which confronts cohabiting couples who separate

  • Can the courts adjust property holding between unmarried couples where title documents define shares?
  • Can a court give an unmarried partner a share in a property held by the other partner?
  • How does equity adjust shares in property occupied by a cohabiting couple?

In ‘Cohabitation in 2017 (Pt 1)’ ( NLJ 3 March 2017, p 11) the discriminatory aspects of cohabitation law in relation to capital adjustment were outlined; but it was pointed out that it relation to children, child maintenance and domestic violence the law was the same for the married and the unmarried. This article (Pt 2) moves on to look at rights which may be acquired in equity by those living together but unmarried. Pt 3 will look at procedural questions and as to how the parties’ capital position is affected if there are children.

Two set of circumstances call for explanation here: first, an unmarried (or not-civil-partnership) couple—hetero-sexual

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’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
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
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll