header-logo header-logo

Splitting costs

13 September 2007 / Donna Whitehead
Issue: 7288 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll