Cohabiting pitfalls: is it time the law caught up? – Halsbury’s Law Exchange

Posted November 26th, 2014 in bills, cohabitation, married persons, mortgages, news by sally

‘The law on relationship breakdown differs between couples who are cohabiting and married couples. Under English Law the concept of common-law wife/husband does not exist. If an unmarried couple live together in a property owned by both of them, they need to be careful to express at the outset what they intend as to property ownership. If they intend it to be an equal ownership they should state this or differing percentages.’

Full story

Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 25th November 2014

Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Comments Off

Will there be reform for cohabiting couples? – Halsbury’s Law Exchange

Posted May 20th, 2014 in cohabitation, financial provision, judges, Law Commission, news by sally

‘The Head of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, recently held a press conference where he addressed the wide ranging reforms of the family justice system that came into force on 22 April 2014. He was also asked to look to the future.’

Full story

Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 20th May 2014

Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Comments Off

Cuts will not damage family justice, says Munby – Law Society’s Gazette

‘Legal aid cuts will not undermine family justice, the head of the Family Division insisted last week as he mooted plans for judge-free divorces and greater legal rights for separating cohabitees.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 5th May 2014

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off

Couples should be able to divorce without going to court, says top judge – The Guardian

Posted April 30th, 2014 in cohabitation, courts, dispute resolution, divorce, judiciary, married persons, news by sally

‘Couples agreeing to divorce by consent should be able to arrange their own separations with a trip to the registrar rather than having to go to court, the most senior family judge in England and Wales says.’

Full story

The Guardian, 29th April 2014

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Comments Off

Geraldine Morris looks at the changes ahead for family law & predicts some new developments – New Law Journal

‘Lawyers may not always think of themselves as business people; family lawyers in particular are often very client focused, looking to achieve the best outcome for parties who are going through what will often be one of the worst periods of their lives. It can be hard, when weighed down with a busy caseload, to peak above the parapet and take time to reflect on how family law is changing. All businesses change over time, some faster than others. Change within the family law justice system has accelerated at an incredible pace in the last few years and 2014 will be no exception.’

Full story

New Law Journal, 22nd January 2014

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Comments Off

Finance and Divorce Update – Family Law Week

‘Jessica Craigs, senior solicitor and David Salter, Joint Head of Family Law at Mills & Reeve LLP analyse the financial remedies and divorce news and cases published in December.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 2nd January 2014

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Comments Off

Couples should not have children until they are ready to marry, says High Court judge – The Independent

Posted December 9th, 2013 in children, cohabitation, families, judges, marriage, news, statistics, taxation by sally

‘A senior High Court judge has argued that couples should not have children until they are ready to wed.’

Full story

The Independent, 8th December 2013

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Comments Off

Professional Negligence and Purchases of Property in Joint Names – Zenith Chambers

Posted December 3rd, 2013 in cohabitation, conveyancing, negligence, news, trusts by sally

‘The purpose of this article is to consider the increasingly common situation where purchasers buy property in their joint names, subject to an express declaration of trust, and where one party has contributed significantly more towards the purchase price (or may have provided all of the funds for the purchase). The same principles apply whether the purchase is by cohabitees, family members or friends.’

Full story

Zenith Chambers, 27th November 2013

Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk

Comments Off

What’s mine is mine… – New Law Journal

Posted November 26th, 2013 in cohabitation, divorce, financial provision, news by tracey

‘Ed Heaton explores the rights of cohabitants.’

Full story

New Law Journal, 22nd November 2013

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Comments Off

The cohabitation conundrum – New Law Journal

Posted October 25th, 2013 in bills, cohabitation, news by sally

“Geraldine Morris tracks recent attempts to clarify cohabitation.”

Full story

New Law Journal, 24th October 2013

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Comments Off

MPs back new legal rights for unmarried couples – Daily Telegraph

Posted September 17th, 2013 in cohabitation, housing, news by sally

“A clear majority of MPs would support a change in the law to give unmarried couples greater legal rights, a poll has found.”

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 16th September 2013

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Comments Off

The Law and Cohabitation – BBC Unreliable Evidence

Posted May 23rd, 2013 in cohabitation, legislation, news by sally

“In the first of a new series, Clive Anderson’s guests struggle to reconcile their differences regarding reform of the way the law treats unmarried cohabiting couples when their relationships break up.”

Listen

BBC Unreliable Evidence, 22nd May 2013

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Comments Off

Good Intentions are Not Enough: Thompson v Hurst – Family Law Week

Posted May 20th, 2013 in appeals, cohabitation, housing, land registration, mortgages, news by sally

“Sheila Hamilton Macdonald, barrister, examines the implications of the Court of Appeal judgment in Thompson v Hurst; a cohabitee property dispute in which the property had been registered in the name of only one of the cohabitees.”

Full story

Family Law Week, 16th May 2013

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Comments Off

PC ( by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) and another v City of York Council – WLR Daily

PC (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) and another v City of York Council [2013] EWCA Civ 478; [2013] WLR (D) 176

“The test for whether a person had capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to decide was specific to the decision in question in its particular factual matrix and context.”

WLR Daily, 1st May 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

“Is the test for capacity to cohabit the same as the test for capacity to marry?” – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted May 10th, 2013 in appeals, cohabitation, learning difficulties, mental health, news by sally

“It may seem strange that the same individual, with learning difficulties, can be considered to have capacity to marry, but not the capacity to decide whether to live with the person they have espoused. What, in essence, is marriage, that puts it on such a different footing to informal cohabitation?”

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 9th May 2013

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Comments Off

Swift v Secretary of State for Justice – WLR Daily

Posted March 26th, 2013 in accidents, appeals, cohabitation, damages, families, human rights, law reports by sally

Swift v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWCA Civ 193; [2013] WLR (D) 118

“The exclusion of a person, cohabiting for less than two years with another who had subsequently died, from the classes of family members entitled to claim damages for loss of dependency under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, as amended, was a proportionate means of pursuing the legitimate legislative aim of confining the right to recovery to those who had relationships of some degree of permanence and dependence. Accordingly, section 1(3)(b) of the 1976 Act, as substituted by section 3(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982, was not incompatible with article 14, in conjunction with article 8, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the choice made by the legislature was not manifestly without foundation and was one Parliament was entitled to make. And even if the section amounted to an interference with the right to respect for family life in breach of article 8.1, the interference was justified under article 8.2.”

WLR Daily, 18th March 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Damages for death and human rights – UK Human Rights Blog

“Swift v. Secretary of State for Justice, Court of Appeal, 18 February 2013. Ms Swift lost her live-in partner in an accident at work caused by negligence. She was pregnant with her partner’s child, but had only been living with him for 6 months. Had she been with him for 2 years, she could have claimed damages for his death under section 1(3) of the Fatal Accidents Act – set out at [1] of the CA judgment. She would then have been a ‘dependant’ as defined under the FAA. So she argued that her rights under Articles 8 (family) and 14 (discrimination) of the ECHR were not properly respected by the law governing damages for the death of a relative – there was no justification for this stark cut-off – 1 year 11 months no claim, 2 years a claim. The judge refused to grant a declaration of incompatibility between the ECHR and the Fatal Accidents Act, and the Court of Appeal has just upheld his decision.”

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 18th March 2013

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Comments Off

‘Unfair’ laws for cohabiting couples highlighted again – BBC News

Posted February 6th, 2013 in appeals, cohabitation, dispute resolution, news, partnerships by sally

“The recent county court case of Pamela Curran and Brian Collins highlights the difficulties that arise when unmarried couples separate and it should serve as a warning to others in a similar position.”

Full story

BBC News, 6th February 2013

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Comments Off

Property laws for cohabiting couples ‘unfair’, judge says – Daily Telegraph

Posted January 24th, 2013 in cohabitation, financial provision, news by sally

“Property laws for cohabiting couples are ‘unfair’ on women who are often left with nothing after separating from their partners, an appeal court judge said on Wednesday.”

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 23rd January 2013

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Comments Off

Gülbahce v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg – WLR Daily

Posted November 12th, 2012 in cohabitation, EC law, law reports, migrant workers, retrospectivity by sally

Gülbahce v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (Case C-268/11); [2012] WLR (D) 313

“The first indent of article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council precluded the competent national authorities from withdrawing the residence permit of a Turkish worker with retroactive effect from the point in time at which there was no longer compliance with the ground on the basis of which his residence permit had been issued under national law if there was no question of fraudulent conduct on the part of that worker and that withdrawal occurred after the completion of the period of one year of legal employment provided for in the first indent of article 6(1).”

WLR Daily, 8th November 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off