header-logo header-logo

22 January 2015 / Graeme Fraser
Issue: 7637 / Categories: Opinion , Family
printer mail-detail

Time to act

frazer

The government must support the reform of cohabitation law, says Graeme Fraser

The House of Lords’ debate on Lord Marks’s Cohabitation Rights Bill on 12 December 2014 highlighted the arguments for and against cohabitation law reform. It also confirmed the government’s continued resistance to supporting immediate legislation to provide financial protection to cohabitants upon relationship breakdown.

Addressing economic unfairness

Lord Marks (Liberal Democrat) explained that the Bill proposes to address economic unfairness at the end of a relationship that has enriched one party and impoverished the other. Cohabitants are defined as a couple who live together and have children, or who have lived together for at least two years. The parties can opt out of the regime, provided that requirements for independent legal advice and other safeguards are met. Qualifying contributions to justify a redistribution of assets could be financial or could be in work or in kind. If the other party has derived and retained a benefit, or the applicant has suffered or would in the future suffer “an economic disadvantage”, the court

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: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll