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

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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll