header-logo header-logo

17 May 2013
Issue: 7560 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

A lost cause

Is it time the two-year cohabitation requirement was removed from the Fatal Accidents Act? Jonathan Herring reports

The government has long been seeking to wage a war on the “common law marriage myth”, namely that couples who are living together unmarried are treated in law as if they were married. That, of course, is false.

There are a number of ways that married couples and unmarried couples are treated differently, most notably the availability of financial orders under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 on divorce. But, are these differences consistent with human rights law? Are unmarried couples who are treated differently from married ones discriminated against?

Definition of dependants
That issue came to the Court of Appeal in Swift v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWCA Civ 193. It concerned s 1(3)(b) Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (FAA 1976) which provides for damages to be awarded to a dependant of a person killed by a wrongful act, neglect or default. The case centred on the definition of a dependant in s 1 (3): “In this Act ‘dependant’ means—(a) the wife or husband or former wife

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll