header-logo header-logo

24 October 2013 / Geraldine Morris
Issue: 7581 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

The cohabitation conundrum

Geraldine Morris tracks recent attempts to clarify cohabitation

The lacuna in the law relating to cohabitants has been highlighted again by the Cohabitation Rights Bill which received its first reading in the House of Lords earlier this month. It isn’t the first time a Bill has sought to address the myriad of non-family law that applies to cohabitants, and it remains to be seen whether it will succeed, but one area the Bill highlights is how cohabitation may be defined. This article will consider:
  • the wide-ranging definitions of cohabitation in the current law;
  • the courts’ approach to pre-marriage cohabitation;
  • the impact of post-separation/divorce cohabitation on spouses or civil partners in relation to financial provision, in particular periodical payments; and
  • how that approach might change if a cohabitation Bill were to finally succeed.

Definitions

The Cohabitation Rights Bill defines cohabitation as two people (A and B) in a relationship, who are not married or civil partners of each other, or within prohibited degrees of relationship, and who:

  • live together as a couple; and
  • to whom
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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll