header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
22 January 2015 / Graeme Fraser
Issue: 7637 / Categories: Opinion , Family
printer mail-detail

Time to act

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll