Definition of cohabitation

Definitions of cohabitation under statute and case law have significant implications for cohabitants.

Statutory definitions

Cohabitants are treated differently from married couples, in particular in relation to property rights, regarding children and rights on death. There are varying statutory definitions of 'cohabitation', for example:

•
references to living ‘in the same household’, eg in CSA 1991, s 3, and sections 1(1A) and 1(1B) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, regarding eligibility to apply under that Act

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Court of Protection makes anticipatory declarations regarding care in case of fluctuating capacity (Oldham MBC v KZ & Others)

Private Client analysis: In the latest case to deal with the challenges posed by fluctuating capacity, the Court of Protection (Mrs Justice Theis) granted anticipatory declarations sought by a local authority regarding the care of KZ, a profoundly deaf young man. Where KZ’s capacity fluctuated but the periods of incapacity were clear, such anticipatory declarations were the most appropriate response. An earlier assessment that KZ totally lacked capacity had failed to take account of his needs as a deaf person. Written by Kyle Bonnell, pupil at XXIV Old Buildings.

HMCTS issues guidance for barristers using the financial remedy contested system and details of a webinar for solicitors

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has issued guidance for barristers using the financial remedy contested system, together with a Welsh translation. The guidance confirms that barristers cannot use notice of change via manage cases to access a contested case like solicitors can, but barristers can be added and removed to have the same access and functionality on digital cases as solicitors do. Access for barristers is provided in two ways. When instructed by a solicitor, barristers will be added by their instructing solicitors using ‘manage barristers’. When barristers are instructed directly on direct access cases, barristers should send a notice of acting to the court dealing with the case including their name, address, email address and organisation details. The court administration will then add access for the barrister using the ‘manage barristers’ function. HMCTS has scheduled a financial remedy webinar for solicitors on 5 February 2025 at 12pm. The webinar will focus on the newly implemented upload draft order function and will also address common mistakes encountered during the process.

Hirachand bans the inclusion of success fees in awards under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (Hirachand v Hirachand)

Private Client analysis: This appeal concerned the narrow question of whether the ‘success fee’ part of a conditional fee agreement (CFA) can be recovered as part of the lump sum awarded in claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975). The Supreme Court held that success fees could not form part of the substantive relief, therefore rendering that portion of a successful claimant’s legal fees irrecoverable from the estate. This will limit claims under the I(PFD)A 1975 by impecunious claimants, and will impact settlement strategies and advice given by practitioners. The judgment considered the question from a number of angles, but the principal issue was public policy; not undermining the CPR costs regime or Parliament’s intention. Written by Elizabeth Atkinson, barrister at Ten Old Square.

Courts and Tribunals Judiciary issues new practice guidance on intermediaries, lay advocates and cognitive assessments in the Family Court

The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has released new practice guidance on the use of intermediaries, lay advocates and cognitive assessments in family proceedings. The guidance clarifies that applications for such assessments must provide evidence of necessity, emphasising that intermediaries should only be used when essential for fair participation, rarely for entire hearings. It outlines the role of intermediaries under the Family Procedure Rules 2010, Pt 3A, together with the process for preliminary and cognitive assessments, and stresses that while informative, assessment conclusions are not definitive and the decision to appoint an intermediary ultimately rests with the judge. This guidance aims to ensure appropriate use of these measures to support vulnerable parties while maintaining efficient court processes.