By now it should be expected of modern Property Law to keep up with the on-going social recognition of unmarried cohabiting couples in the UK. Indeed, such relationships have been long established as fastest growing family form, seeing an increase of 25.8% from 2008 to 2018, and cementing its class as the second-largest family type in number at 3.5 million just the following year. However, despite this progress, there is no automatic level of protection available to those in such relationships in the case of their dissolution. The purpose of my dissertation therefore was to portray the reality; that much of the law surrounding cohabitation operates on unreliable gendered property law principles.

The primary issue in this area is the fact that the discretion available to married couples is not available for these unmarried partnerships. The latter do not receive the same level of legal protection and must instead resort to complex trusts of the family home. Given the emotional and economic commitment involved in the purchase of the family home, it is no surprise how vulnerable cohabiting couples may really be. My dissertation specifically focused on the regime that governs ‘sole-ownership’ cases, where the courts are responsible for determining proprietary interest by focusing almost exclusively on financial behaviour. It is this very requirement that has historically left women without any rights in their family homes, regardless of their contributions and commitment. To evidence this position, I examined a plethora of legal principles, academic literature and case-law.

After analysing the historical and ongoing social developments surrounding cohabitants in the UK, I moved on to consider constructive trusts in particular. Generally, there are two different regimes that apply for sole and joint-ownership cases, established by Lloyds Bank v Rosset and Stack v Dowden/Jones v Kernott respectively. In sole ownership cases the starting presumption is that the sole legal owner is also the sole beneficial owner. It was my desire therefore through this very dissertation to suggest that gender inequality is portrayed most noticeably in sole-ownership cases. An accurate demonstration of this can be seen in the aforementioned case of Rosset where the law clearly privileged express discussions and financial contributions.

After providing the legal backdrop of the Common Intention Constructive Trust, I demonstrated that the main source of injustice shown directly to women in cohabitation was by virtue of an overall gendered system that fails to acknowledge the sexual division of labour in these relationships. Nonetheless, my dissertation proceeded to analyse relevant case-law in order to ascertain whether the position set from Rosset changed over the years. Beginning with Burns v Burns, a 1984 case that is often regarded as the primary example of the law operating unfairly towards women, Mrs Burns was left completely destitute after her 20-year relationship. However, it was finally evidenced in my concluding chapters that despite a slight change in both the societal position of women in the workplace, and recent developments in the common law, that the legal vulnerability that surrounds cohabiting families still remains.

As a result, my dissertation seeks to emphasise the potential for women in such relationships to be left economically vulnerable when the relationship terminates. These issues, to my deepest regret, have failed to be addressed due to ad hoc and unsuccessful attempts at reform. Therefore, such developments pushed me to conclude this blog with a quote from Simone Wong in 1998 which I sadly believe still paints an accurate picture for cohabitation in 21^st century Britain:

“[a] woman’s place is often in the home, but if she stays there, she will acquire no interest in it”

Related Blogs

• 

  Reforming Corporate Insolvency Law for the 21st Century: Shaping the Future of Insolvency

• 

  Adverse Influence, Mental Ill Health, Risk, and Criminalisation: Does mental ill health increase the incidence of criminalisation of care-experienced children in England?

• 

  Rewriting the Rules, The Green Exchange; Evolving Environmental Policy and Legal Practice in English Law through Ecosystem Services Schemes

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by our bloggers and those providing comments are personal, and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Lancaster University. Responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within blog posts belongs to the blogger.