header-logo header-logo

17 May 2013
Issue: 7560 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

A lost cause

Is it time the two-year cohabitation requirement was removed from the Fatal Accidents Act? Jonathan Herring reports

The government has long been seeking to wage a war on the “common law marriage myth”, namely that couples who are living together unmarried are treated in law as if they were married. That, of course, is false.

There are a number of ways that married couples and unmarried couples are treated differently, most notably the availability of financial orders under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 on divorce. But, are these differences consistent with human rights law? Are unmarried couples who are treated differently from married ones discriminated against?

Definition of dependants
That issue came to the Court of Appeal in Swift v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWCA Civ 193. It concerned s 1(3)(b) Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (FAA 1976) which provides for damages to be awarded to a dependant of a person killed by a wrongful act, neglect or default. The case centred on the definition of a dependant in s 1 (3): “In this Act

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

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers to be joined by leading family law set, 4 Brick Court, this summer

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Real estate and construction energy offering boosted by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Firm bolsters real estate team with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting
Plans to reduce jury trials risk missing the real problem in the criminal justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers argues the crown court backlog is fuelled not by juries but weak cases slipping through a flawed ‘50%’ prosecution test
Emerging technologies may soon transform how courts determine truth in deeply personal disputes. In this week's NLJ, Madhavi Kabra of 1 Hare Court and Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers explore how neurotechnology could reshape family law
A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law
The courts have drawn a firm line under attempts to extend arbitration appeals. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester highlights that if the High Court refuses permission under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, that is the end
back-to-top-scroll