S2 / Effects of Marriage, Civil Partnership and Cohabitation
Required Reading:
● Jonathan Herring, Family Law 9th ed, pp 121-128, pp. 181-199
● Equality Act 2010 ss. 198-199
● Probert and Harding, Cretney and Probert’s Family Law’ 9th ed. Sweet and Maxwell
2015 paras.5-001 to 5-018, on Minerva
Topic 2 Objectives:
1. State succinctly the legal rights and remedies which arise on marriage and civil
partnership.
2. Identify the extent to which the law now recognises cohabiting relationships as giving
rise to legal rights and remedies.
3. Compare the legal treatment of cohabitation with marriage and civil partnership.
4. Review and evaluate the various policy options for reform of cohabitation law, including
the proposals made by the Law Commission.
1. Intestacy problems:
A) Eduardo dies aged 48 years, leaving an estate worth £450,000. He was married to Amar
and they had one child, Daniel, aged 21.
● Amar would receive: statutory legacy of £270,000 (2020 update) (index linked), all
personal chattels, and they are entitled to half of the residue outright.
● Daniel would be entitled to the remaining half of the residuary (not held on trust since he
is over 18).
● Correct.
B) Jane dies at age 53 leaving an estate worth £750,000. She was married to Pierre and
they have no children. Jane’s father is dead but her mother, Sybil, is still alive.
● Since there are no children, Pierre (surviving spouse) would receive the whole estate.
● The parents receive nothing under the Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Act 2014.
● Correct.
C) Samuel had one son, Oscar, from his first marriage. He lived with Gillian along with
Gillian’s daughter, Kaari, from her first marriage for 15 years until his death at the age of 59.
Sam leaves an estate worth £600,000.
● Does not say that Samuel and Gillian are married.
● Cohabitants = unmarried couples cannot inherit from the deceased interstate = If living
“as a husband or wife of the deceased” for more than two years before death, can apply
to the court under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for
limited claim to “reasonable maintenance” based on her circumstances. It is up to Gillian
to persuade the court that she is entitled to something - will get less than if they were
married.
, ● Oscar is his son = if he is under 18, everything will be held on trust for him. If he is over
18, he will get it outright.
● Kaari = not blood related but she is a child of the deceased in the sense that he had a
parental role - could join Gillian in trying to get reasonable maintenance. Could be
treated as a child under the 1975 act.
D) Marian dies aged 43, having lived with Robert for 20 years. They had no children. Her
estate is worth £350,000. Both her parents are dead, as is her older brother, Angus. Angus
is survived by his daughter, Isobel, aged 23 years.
● Estate would go to Isobel absolutely - the court goes down the line of living relatives, and
she is the closest.
● Robert could apply for reasonable maintenance under the 1975 act - has to persuade
the court.
● Impact of cohabitation and no will (dying intestate).
2. Law Reform proposal problem:
As usual, work your way through the course materials and readings, and apply your
knowledge to the following case-study making brief notes on the advice you would give to
Elizabeth. Just think through the legal issues the case presents.
Elizabeth and Philip are both aged 50. Elizabeth was a successful interior designer and Philip is
a company director. They have been living together for the last five years, since the death of
Philip's wife. Elizabeth owns outright a flat in one of the riverside developments in Leeds worth
about £150,000, which she lets to a young professional couple for £750 per calendar month.
When Elizabeth and Philip decided to live together, they agreed that she would give up her job
and move into his family home, a rambling and rather dilapidated eight-bedroom farmhouse
near Harrogate, worth about £1,750,000. Over the last five years, Elizabeth has spent
considerable time and effort as well as some of her savings in restoring the house. She
supervised the conversion of one of the barns and they now rent this out as a holiday cottage,
bringing in an annual income of £16,000. Philip has been contributing to a private pension
scheme for the last 25 years, but Elizabeth has never seen the terms of the scheme. Elizabeth
herself has made some provision for her retirement but any pension is likely to be modest.
Philip had a heart attack last year, although he has made a good recovery. His daughter,
Victoria, has now returned to live at home whilst she is doing a postgraduate degree at the
University of Lyddon. Elizabeth and Victoria have never hit it off and this is causing friction
between Elizabeth and Philip.
When Elizabeth and Philip first decided on a committed relationship, she was opposed to
marriage for ideological reasons, and he felt it was too close in time to the death of his wife.
Recently Elizabeth has started feeling vulnerable about her position, should they split up. She
wants to know how her situation as a cohabitant compares to the legal rights of a wife and if
marriage to Philip is the only way in which she could secure her future.
Required Reading:
● Jonathan Herring, Family Law 9th ed, pp 121-128, pp. 181-199
● Equality Act 2010 ss. 198-199
● Probert and Harding, Cretney and Probert’s Family Law’ 9th ed. Sweet and Maxwell
2015 paras.5-001 to 5-018, on Minerva
Topic 2 Objectives:
1. State succinctly the legal rights and remedies which arise on marriage and civil
partnership.
2. Identify the extent to which the law now recognises cohabiting relationships as giving
rise to legal rights and remedies.
3. Compare the legal treatment of cohabitation with marriage and civil partnership.
4. Review and evaluate the various policy options for reform of cohabitation law, including
the proposals made by the Law Commission.
1. Intestacy problems:
A) Eduardo dies aged 48 years, leaving an estate worth £450,000. He was married to Amar
and they had one child, Daniel, aged 21.
● Amar would receive: statutory legacy of £270,000 (2020 update) (index linked), all
personal chattels, and they are entitled to half of the residue outright.
● Daniel would be entitled to the remaining half of the residuary (not held on trust since he
is over 18).
● Correct.
B) Jane dies at age 53 leaving an estate worth £750,000. She was married to Pierre and
they have no children. Jane’s father is dead but her mother, Sybil, is still alive.
● Since there are no children, Pierre (surviving spouse) would receive the whole estate.
● The parents receive nothing under the Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Act 2014.
● Correct.
C) Samuel had one son, Oscar, from his first marriage. He lived with Gillian along with
Gillian’s daughter, Kaari, from her first marriage for 15 years until his death at the age of 59.
Sam leaves an estate worth £600,000.
● Does not say that Samuel and Gillian are married.
● Cohabitants = unmarried couples cannot inherit from the deceased interstate = If living
“as a husband or wife of the deceased” for more than two years before death, can apply
to the court under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for
limited claim to “reasonable maintenance” based on her circumstances. It is up to Gillian
to persuade the court that she is entitled to something - will get less than if they were
married.
, ● Oscar is his son = if he is under 18, everything will be held on trust for him. If he is over
18, he will get it outright.
● Kaari = not blood related but she is a child of the deceased in the sense that he had a
parental role - could join Gillian in trying to get reasonable maintenance. Could be
treated as a child under the 1975 act.
D) Marian dies aged 43, having lived with Robert for 20 years. They had no children. Her
estate is worth £350,000. Both her parents are dead, as is her older brother, Angus. Angus
is survived by his daughter, Isobel, aged 23 years.
● Estate would go to Isobel absolutely - the court goes down the line of living relatives, and
she is the closest.
● Robert could apply for reasonable maintenance under the 1975 act - has to persuade
the court.
● Impact of cohabitation and no will (dying intestate).
2. Law Reform proposal problem:
As usual, work your way through the course materials and readings, and apply your
knowledge to the following case-study making brief notes on the advice you would give to
Elizabeth. Just think through the legal issues the case presents.
Elizabeth and Philip are both aged 50. Elizabeth was a successful interior designer and Philip is
a company director. They have been living together for the last five years, since the death of
Philip's wife. Elizabeth owns outright a flat in one of the riverside developments in Leeds worth
about £150,000, which she lets to a young professional couple for £750 per calendar month.
When Elizabeth and Philip decided to live together, they agreed that she would give up her job
and move into his family home, a rambling and rather dilapidated eight-bedroom farmhouse
near Harrogate, worth about £1,750,000. Over the last five years, Elizabeth has spent
considerable time and effort as well as some of her savings in restoring the house. She
supervised the conversion of one of the barns and they now rent this out as a holiday cottage,
bringing in an annual income of £16,000. Philip has been contributing to a private pension
scheme for the last 25 years, but Elizabeth has never seen the terms of the scheme. Elizabeth
herself has made some provision for her retirement but any pension is likely to be modest.
Philip had a heart attack last year, although he has made a good recovery. His daughter,
Victoria, has now returned to live at home whilst she is doing a postgraduate degree at the
University of Lyddon. Elizabeth and Victoria have never hit it off and this is causing friction
between Elizabeth and Philip.
When Elizabeth and Philip first decided on a committed relationship, she was opposed to
marriage for ideological reasons, and he felt it was too close in time to the death of his wife.
Recently Elizabeth has started feeling vulnerable about her position, should they split up. She
wants to know how her situation as a cohabitant compares to the legal rights of a wife and if
marriage to Philip is the only way in which she could secure her future.
