header-logo header-logo

13 September 2007 / Donna Whitehead
Issue: 7288 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Splitting costs

Donna Whitehead examines the Law Commission’s recommendations on the financial rights of cohabitants on relationship breakdown

The Law Commission published recommendations on cohabitation reform in Cohabitation: the Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown (Cm 7182) on 1 August 2007.

According to the Office for National Statistics, the number of couples opting to cohabit has risen by 50% between 1996 and 2004. Despite this, the redistribution of money and property at the end of a cohabiting relationship can only be regulated—in the absence of an express agreement—by the imposition of complex equitable remedies. The commission has concluded that the application of these remedies is unfair, uncertain and procedurally complex.

WHO WILL BE PROTECTED?

The commission concluded that not all cohabitants should be able to obtain financial relief in the event of separation. To be protected, a cohabiting couple would have to satisfy three requirements:
- the couple would have to be regarded as eligible;
- they must not have agreed to opt out of the scheme; and
- the applicant would have to demonstrate a qualifying contribution to the
relationship.

WHO

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll