‘Millions of unmarried couples who live together could be unaware of their rights if the relationship breaks down, a family law group has warned.’
BBC News, 27th November 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A woman collapsed in court after a judge ruled that her ex-boyfriend had not promised to marry her and she did not have a claim for a half-share of his business. After Judge Alan Johns QC ruled against Gillian Turner, fell onto the desk in front of her and was given first aid treatment from court staff.’
Daily Telegraph, 18th September 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Thirty-something lovers Fallon Rogers (barmaid) and Harrison Burns (police constable) didn’t have much money between them. What little they had was Harrison’s – enough for a deposit on a modest house, in fact. Fed up with all the broken boilers and other hassles of renting, Harrison thought it would be an idea for them to look at buying a property. Fallon was unable to obtain financial assistance from any of her cash-strapped family to help her fund any such purchase. But all was not lost….’
Tanfield Chambers, 20th July 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The question of whether a case will fall if a judge rejects a party’s evidence on grounds which that party has not had a chance to explain during the trial should be based on whether the overall trial is fair, senior UK judges have indicated.’
OUT-LAW.com, 18th August 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘As Nicholas Cusworth QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, stated in JB v MB [2015] EWHC 1846 (Fam), where addressing post-separation accrual, he was dealing with a ‘lawless science’ and therefore the outcome he reached ‘may be arbitrary to a degree’.’
Law Society's Gazette, 19th June 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Separating elderly couples against their wishes when one or both move to care homes must end, Britain’s most senior family judge has said.’
BBC News, 10th May 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has held that the difference in the residence requirements for statutory succession to secure tenancies between married couples (or civil partners) and unmarried couples living together as man and wife (or as civil partners) under the former s.87, Housing Act 1985, was not a breach of Art.14, European Convention of Human Rights, read with Art.8.’
Arden Chambers, 24th March 2017
Source: www.ardenchambers.com
‘The Court of Appeal has held that the words “costs … incurred” in the service charge provisions in a right to buy lease were to be given a natural and not a special meaning; accordingly, the Upper Tribunal had been wrong to hold that such costs were reduced by third-party energy-saving funding received by the landlord from an energy provider in relation to a major works programme; but the Court was required to determine for itself the “fair proportion” of the costs to which the leaseholder was required to contribute, and a deduction was to be made in relation to part of the funding received which was attributable to the leaseholder’s flat.’
Arden Chambers, 4th April 2017
Source: www.ardenchambers.com
‘Protecting the financial rights of unmarried parents will matter not just to women but to the one in three children born to parents who aren’t married.’
The Guardian, 8th February 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A woman who lost her long-term partner has won a legal battle that is likely to improve the pension rights of unmarried couples in the public sector.’
BBC News, 8th February 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 those who live together but are not married are not entitled to damages for bereavement. The High Court has found that though this did not directly engage the right to family life and privacy under Article 8, the difference in treatment between cohabitees and those who were married or in a civil partnership could not be justified and consideration should be given to reforming the law.’
The Guardian, 21st September 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Edward Heaton, Principal Associate and Jane Booth, Associate, both of Mills & Reeve LLP, analyse the news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during July 2016.’
Family Law Week, 7th August 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘A woman is taking the government to court for breaching her human rights in denying her bereavement damages after her partner died.’
BBC News, 22nd May 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A woman who lived with her partner for 18 years has won a legal battle with his estranged wife for his share of their home.’
BBC News, 16th February 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A grandmother who lived with her partner for almost two decades until his death has won a High Court battle after his estranged wife inherited half their home.’
Independent, 16 February 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Younger couples who marry now more likely to stay together past seven year itch than their parents’ generation suggesting ‘living in sin’ makes marriage stronger.’
Daily Telegraph, 23rd November 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘John Wilson QC of 1 Hare Court analyses a Court of Appeal judgment on the illegality defence which may prove very pertinent to cohabitation and financial remedy cases.’
Family Law Week, 15th April 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Last summer the case of Southwell v Blackburn came before the Court of Appeal. The subject of the appeal was the correct application of the equitable remedy of proprietary estoppel within the context of a cohabiting couple. Judgment was handed down on 16th October 2014 (reported under [2014] EWCA Civ 1347) and was subsequently described in the national press as a ‘landmark ruling’ in relation to the rights and entitlements of unmarried couples when their relationships come to an end. This article examines whether the decision has in fact moved the law on in such seismic terms.’
No. 5 Chambers, 1st April 2015
Source: www.no5.com
‘Blame-free divorces and fairer property rights for cohabiting couples should be introduced as a matter of urgency, a leading family law organisation has urged.’
The Guardian, 23rd February 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Anita Mehta, barrister of Crown Office Row, Brighton, argues that Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 applications should not be regarded as the domain of footballers’ girlfriends or the uber-wealthy but as a powerful tool for meeting children’s needs in a wide variety of cases.’
Full story
Family Law Week, 6th February 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025