header-logo header-logo

The cohabitation conundrum

24 October 2013 / Geraldine Morris
Issue: 7581 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Geraldine Morris tracks recent attempts to clarify cohabitation

The lacuna in the law relating to cohabitants has been highlighted again by the Cohabitation Rights Bill which received its first reading in the House of Lords earlier this month. It isn’t the first time a Bill has sought to address the myriad of non-family law that applies to cohabitants, and it remains to be seen whether it will succeed, but one area the Bill highlights is how cohabitation may be defined. This article will consider:
  • the wide-ranging definitions of cohabitation in the current law;
  • the courts’ approach to pre-marriage cohabitation;
  • the impact of post-separation/divorce cohabitation on spouses or civil partners in relation to financial provision, in particular periodical payments; and
  • how that approach might change if a cohabitation Bill were to finally succeed.

Definitions

The Cohabitation Rights Bill defines cohabitation as two people (A and B) in a relationship, who are not married or civil partners of each other, or within prohibited degrees of relationship, and who:

  • live together as a couple; and
  • to whom
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