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 IS ELIGIBLE?

Three categories of cohabitant would be entitled to

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
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
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
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
back-to-top-scroll