‘Former High Court family judge Sir Paul Coleridge calls for couples to be given extra tax breaks after passing landmark wedding anniversaries to encourage family stability.’
Daily Telegraph, 10th January 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘In R (Turley) v LB Wandsworth , the Claimant was the partner of the late Mr Doyle, who was the secure tenant of a property at Battersea Park Rd, London, SW8 from 1995 until his death on 17/3/2012. Mr D and Ms T had 4 children together and they lived at the property throughout, apart from a critically important period of separation between December 2010 and January 2012.
Ms T applied to succeed to the secure tenancy but the council decided that because she had not resided at the property for the 12 months immediately preceding Mr D’s death, she did not qualify to succeed. Ms T brought judicial review proceedings against that decision.’
Nearly Legal, 14th December 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan launch judicial review after trying to hold ceremony at town hall and being turned away.’
The Guardian, 2nd December 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘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.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 25th November 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘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.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 20th May 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘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.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 5th May 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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.’
The Guardian, 29th April 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘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.’
New Law Journal, 22nd January 2014
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘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.’
Family Law Week, 2nd January 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘A senior High Court judge has argued that couples should not have children until they are ready to wed.’
The Independent, 8th December 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘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.’
Zenith Chambers, 27th November 2013
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
‘Ed Heaton explores the rights of cohabitants.’
New Law Journal, 22nd November 2013
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
“Geraldine Morris tracks recent attempts to clarify cohabitation.”
New Law Journal, 24th October 2013
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
“A clear majority of MPs would support a change in the law to give unmarried couples greater legal rights, a poll has found.”
Daily Telegraph, 16th September 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“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.”
BBC Unreliable Evidence, 22nd May 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“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.”
Family Law Week, 16th May 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“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
“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?”
UK Human Rights Blog, 9th May 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
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
“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.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th March 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024