header-logo header-logo

Cohabitation in 2017 (Pt 2)

17 November 2017 / David Burrows
Issue: 7770 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail
nlj_7770_burrows

In the second of a series of articles, David Burrows explores the complex law which confronts cohabiting couples who separate

  • Can the courts adjust property holding between unmarried couples where title documents define shares?
  • Can a court give an unmarried partner a share in a property held by the other partner?
  • How does equity adjust shares in property occupied by a cohabiting couple?

In ‘Cohabitation in 2017 (Pt 1)’ ( NLJ 3 March 2017, p 11) the discriminatory aspects of cohabitation law in relation to capital adjustment were outlined; but it was pointed out that it relation to children, child maintenance and domestic violence the law was the same for the married and the unmarried. This article (Pt 2) moves on to look at rights which may be acquired in equity by those living together but unmarried. Pt 3 will look at procedural questions and as to how the parties’ capital position is affected if there are children.

Two set of circumstances call for explanation here: first, an unmarried (or not-civil-partnership)

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

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

London promotion underscores firm’s investment in white collar and investigations

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Private client team strengthened by partner appointment

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

Kate Gaskell, CEO of Flex Legal, reflects on chasing her childhood dreams underscores the importance of welcoming those from all backgrounds into the profession

NEWS
Overcrowded prisons, mental health hospitals and immigration centres are failing to meet international and domestic human rights standards, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has warned
Two speedier and more streamlined qualification routes have been launched for probate and conveyancing professionals
Workplace stress was a contributing factor in almost one in eight cases before the employment tribunal last year, indicating its endemic grip on the UK workplace
In Ward v Rai, the High Court reaffirmed that imprecise points of dispute can and will be struck out. Writing in NLJ this week, Amy Dunkley of Bolt Burdon Kemp reports on the decision and its implications for practitioners
Could the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v Hayes; R v Palombo unintentionally unsettle future complex fraud trials? Maia Cohen-Lask of Corker Binning explores the question in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll