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: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

Mark Hastings, founding partner of Quillon Law, on turning dreams into reality and pushing back on preconceptions about partnership

Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi

Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi

New family law partner for Italian and international clients appointed

Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish

Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish

Firm elects new chair of tier 1 ranked employment department

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll