‘Since the two seminal decisions of the House of Lords, first in White v White [2000] 2 FLR 981 and then in Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] 1 FLR 1186, introduced practitioners to the potentially crucial distinction (in sharing cases, at least) between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, and the decision of Nicholas Mostyn QC (as he then was) in GW v RW (Financial Provision: Departure from Equality) [2003] 2 FLR 108 introduced into orthodoxy the practice of treating seamless pre-marital cohabitation as, or at least as if it were, part of a marriage, the question of when parties commenced cohabitation has assumed an important significance (although, unlike the ES1, Form E still does not require them to set out when they say that was), alongside the question of when they separated.’
Financial Remedies Journal, 22nd August 2024
Source: financialremediesjournal.com
