header-logo header-logo

16 March 2018 / Graeme Fraser
Issue: 7785 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Cohabitation conundrum

nlj_7785_fraser

Graeme Fraser discusses extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples

  • Legislation aimed at extending the rights for unmarried, opposite-sex couples has moved unopposed to the next stage of its passage through Parliament.

Last month, the issue of extending rights for unmarried opposite-sex couples was debated enthusiastically in the House of Commons, as this key item of legislation moved unopposed to the next stage of its passage through Parliament.

The views expressed in the debate suggest that there is increasing support from MPs for some form of legislative reform, as well as an increased impetus to promote public awareness of the relative lack of rights afforded to cohabitees.

The Civil Partnerships, Marriages & Deaths (Registration Etc) Bill was introduced by Conservative MP, Tim Loughton, and included several important provisions relating to the rights of cohabiting opposite-sex couples.

Glaring inequality

In the House of Commons at the Bill’s second reading, Mr Loughton said he intended to correct the ‘glaring inequality’ that was brought about by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act. Same-sex couples are able to

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll