header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Time to act

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
22 January 2015 / Graeme Fraser
Issue: 7637 / Categories: Opinion , Family
printer mail-detail
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
Clyde & Co—Sian Langer & Gemma Parker

Clyde & Co—Sian Langer & Gemma Parker

Firm strengthens catastrophic injury capability with partner promotions

DWF—Dean Gormley

DWF—Dean Gormley

Finance and restructuring team offering expands in Manchester with partner hire

Taylor Rose—Vicki Maflin

Taylor Rose—Vicki Maflin

Firm announces appointment of head of remortgage

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
NLJ this week: Assisted dying under the legal microscope
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
NLJ this week: Failure to deliver in Getty v Stability AI
The long-awaited Getty Images v Stability AI judgment arrived at the end of last year—but not with the seismic impact many expected. In this week's issue of NLJ, experts from Arnold & Porter dissect a ruling that is ‘historic’ yet tightly confined
NLJ this week: Spotlight on the Supreme Court in 2025
The UK Supreme Court may be deciding fewer cases, but its impact in 2025 was anything but muted. In this week's NLJ, Professor Emeritus Brice Dickson of Queen’s University Belfast reviews a year marked by historically low output, a striking rise in jointly authored judgments, and a continued decline in dissent. High-profile rulings on biological sex under the Equality Act, public access to Dartmoor, and fairness in sexual offence trials ensured the court’s voice carried far beyond the Strand
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll