header-logo header-logo

Cohabitation in 2017 (Pt 2)

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

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll