header-logo header-logo

02 August 2007
Issue: 7284 / Categories: Legal News , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

Legal remedies for unmarried couples who separate

News

Couples who live together and then break up should not be given the same rights as married couples and civil partners, the Law Commission says. However, unmarried couples with children or who have been together for a certain period of time should be given certain rights to property, money and possessions.

In a report published this week, Cohabitation: the Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown, the commissioners reject calls for equality of rights and instead recommend introducing a scheme of financial remedies on separation for cohabitants and their families.

The commissioners’ proposed reforms would apply only to cohabiting couples who have had a child together, or who have cohabited for an as yet unspecified minimum period of somewhere between two to five years. Couples would be free to opt out by a written agreement.

Financial remedies would reflect the parties’ contribution to the relationship, and priority would be given to any dependent children. There would be no concept of maintenance payments and no principle of equal share of assets.
Stuart Bridge, the commissioner leading the project, says: “The scheme we are recommending, in the light of consultation, is distinct from that which applies between spouses on divorce.

“It would not apply to all cohabitants and where it did apply would only give rise to remedies relating to contributions made to the relationship. We do not accept the argument that such reform would undermine marriage.
“We consider that our scheme strikes the right balance between the need to alleviate hardship and the need to protect couples’ freedom of choice.”
According to family lawyers group Resolution, the number of cohabiting households is predicted to grow from one in six to one in four by 2031. More than 70% of family lawyers surveyed by Resolution back the case for urgent reform, stating that the law fails cohabiting couples when they separate.
Julian Washington, partner at Forsters LLP, says: “The powerful and persistent myth of ‘common law marriage’ is a major cause of injustice for families. The Law Commission’s proposals are a fair and proportionate response to this problem.”

However, James Freeman, family law solicitor at Speechly Bircham LLP, warns: “There are likely to be problems with this proposed new system, not least the unpleasant prospect of litigation over what decisions and contributions were made over the course of a long unmarried relationship. It also remains to be seen whether the political will is there to make these proposals into law.”

Issue: 7284 / Categories: Legal News , Divorce , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll