Regulating Cohabitation:

The Concept of Fairness on

the Division of Property of
Unmarried Couples

Mateusz Bernatek
August 2014
Mateusz Bernatek, Independent Project in Law, 1360066

Abstract
This essay offers a comprehensive discussion of the law of cohabitation. The
reader is presented with a detailed history of the social change that took place
in society that allowed for the recognition and acceptance of cohabiting
relationships, both socially and legally. Common law marriage myth is
debunked and the actual legal protection enjoyed by cohabiting couples is laid
out. Finally, the essay offers a critical commentary, highlights the need for
reform and discusses the concept of fairness on the division of property of
unmarried couples.

Contents
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction............................................................................................................................ 3
History of Cohabitation .......................................................................................................... 4
Property division upon the divorce ........................................................................................ 7
Debunking the common law marriage myth ......................................................................... 9
Property division of unmarried couples ................................................................................. 9
The concept of fairness ........................................................................................................ 11
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 12
Bibliography ......................................................................................................................... 14
Mateusz Bernatek, Independent Project in Law, 1360066

Introduction
Marriage has many meanings in today’s world. For some it is a union based on biblical
principles. For others it is just a matter of formality, a form of legalised commitment that is
dictated by nothing else but social conduct. However, in the 1950s for the majority of the
population in the UK, there was no other choice than to get married. For women of that era
there was no other acceptable status1. Not only would society would ostracise them if they
did not get married, but throughout their upbringing they were taught that it is their only
life goal and destiny2. Nevertheless, in the 21st century the attitude towards this immensely
important lifestyle choice has changed significantly. Marriage has been gradually losing its
significance in favour of cohabitation3, with the latter being the fastest growing family type4.
However, due to the stigma previously attached to it, it did not become a statistically
significant type of family until the late 1970s5. This leaves one with the question of how the
English legal system decided to protect those who chose this rapidly emerging relationship
type.

This essay will focus exclusively on the area where the law appears to be the most
unresponsive – the division of property of unmarried couples upon the breakdown of the
relationship. The starting point for this type of dispute is always that “equity follows the
law”6. However, taking into account the radical change in social attitude a trace of doubt is
cast upon whether this is, in fact, the most equitable solution. The main goal of this essay is
an attempt to establish whether the current cohabitation law deals with such disputes fairly.
Firstly however, a detailed history and the analysis of the social change will be discussed.

1
R Auchmuty, ‘Law and the Power of Feminism: How Marriage Lost its Power to Oppress Women’ [2012] Fem
Leg Stud 71, 72
2
Ibid., p. 73
3
ONS, ‘Population Estimates by Marital Status’ (Statistics.gov.uk 2011) <http://www.ons.gov.uk/> accessed 18
August 2014 - According to the ONS 35.6% of population were never legally married and that number is
continuously increasing since the 1970s
4
ONS, ‘Families and Households’ (ons.gov.uk 2013) <http://www.ons.gov.uk/> accessed 18 August 2014
5
K Kiernan, H Land and J Lewis, Lone Motherhood in the Twentieth Century Britain (1st, Oxford University
Press, Oxford 1998) 40 as cited in H Wood, D Bishop, D Lush, A Murray and J Eams, Cohabitation: Law,
Practices and Precedents (5th, Family Law, Bristol 2012) xi
6
See Lord Walker in Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432 at para 33 “In the ordinary domestic case where there
are joint legal owners there will be a heavy burden in establishing to the court's satisfaction that an intention
to keep a sort of balance-sheet of contributions actually existed, or should be inferred, or imputed to the
parties. The presumption will be that equity follows the law. In such cases the court should not readily embark
on the sort of detailed examination of the parties' relationship and finances that was attempted (with limited
success) in this case.”
Mateusz Bernatek, Independent Project in Law, 1360066

History of Cohabitation
There are many different reasons why people choose to cohabit rather than marry.
Some see it as a prelude to getting married while others treat it as a viable alternative to
marriage and a way to escape what they perceive to be a patriarchal institution7. There is no
denying the fact that cohabitation has been on the rise due to a change in social norms. It is
important to consider factors which made it more acceptable for couples, both opposite-sex
and same-sex, to cohabit.

Living together as two equal partners in a romantic relationship or even openly

expressing love was virtually impossible for two persons of the same sex only a few decades
ago8. Today’s changes in legislation where LGBT people are on equal footing with
heterosexual couples9, at least legally, took almost forty years of battle. The first step that
triggered a major change for the LGBT community in the UK was the enactment of the
Sexual Offences Act 1967 which, amongst many other provisions, decriminalised
homosexuality. Although from a modern point of view the Act was incredibly flawed, it
sparked a gradual shift in social attitude. The 1970s had seen the first British Gay Pride
Rally10 and the foundation of the International Lesbian and Gay Association11. Even though
the next decade brought the enactment of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988,
which explicitly forbade promotion of homosexuality, it did not stop the activists like the
group called Stonewall UK to fight for equality. the effects of which are seen in today’s legal
attitudes reflected well in precedents12.

The legal position of same-sex cohabitants, however, was not fully recognised until the
decision in Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association13 where it was accepted that same-sex

7
A Barlow, S Duncan, G James and A Park, Cohabitation, Marriage and the Law: Social Change and Legal
Reform in the 21st Century (1st, Hart, Oxford 2005) 72
8
Geraldine Bedell, 'Coming out of the dark ages' (theguardian.com 2007) <http://www.theguardian.com/>
accessed 20 August 2014 “Forty years ago in Britain, loving the wrong person could make you a criminal.
Smiling in the park could lead to arrest and being in the wrong address book could cost you a prison sentence.
Homosexuality was illegal and hundreds of thousands of men feared being picked up by zealous police wanting
easy convictions, often for doing nothing more than looking a bit gay.”
9
Freedom to marry for same-sex couples was granted upon the enactment of Marriage (Same Sex Couples)
Act 2013,
10
'History of London Pride' (lgbthistoryuk.org) <http://www.lgbthistoryuk.org/> accessed 20 August 2014
11
The only worldwide federation campaigning for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex rights – founded in
1978 'About ILGA' (ilga.org 2014) <http://ilga.org/> accessed 20 August 2014
12
Sir Ian McKellen, 'Section 28' (stonewall.org.uk) <http://www.stonewall.org.uk/> accessed 20 August 2014
13
[1999] 2 FLR 1027
Mateusz Bernatek, Independent Project in Law, 1360066

couples were members of each other’s family. This was a landmark decision and the House
of Lords officially stated that same-sex relationships can embody every familial
characteristic identified by Lord Slynn as commitment and support, caring and love, sharing
of lives and mutual interdependence14. It was then followed a few years later by the House
of Lord’s decision in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza15 where it was finally acknowledged that
such couples live together as “husband and wife”16. Finally, the legislation that allowed
same-sex couples to formalise their relationship, prima facie granting them the same rights
and responsibilities as the ones of heterosexual couples was the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
However, in addition to that it also equalised the legal position of same-sex and opposite-
sex cohabitants. The social attitudes towards homosexuality are best reflected in the annual
British Social Attitudes survey. When the British population was asked for the first time in
1983 whether they see sex between two persons of the same gender as wrong 62.6% of
respondents answered that it is always or mostly wrong, with only 17.6% choosing “nothing
wrong at all” as their answer17. In contrast in 2013 when asked the same question 68.2%
said it is rarely wrong or not wrong at all18. Therefore, it is apparent that the road to social
acceptance for same-sex cohabitants had to start with the society changing its attitude
towards the idea of a same-sex relationship itself.

The struggles of same-sex cohabitants, however, have not been unique to that
particular group. Heterosexual cohabitation, whether as a pre-marital trial or as an
alternative to marriage, was stigmatised to the extent that two people living together were
deemed as “living in sin”19. There are, however, different reasons why opposite-sex
cohabitation has gradually become an acceptable phenomenon.

14
Ibid at para 714
15
[2004] UKHL 30
16
See Baroness Hale at para 144 “I have used the term 'marriage-like' to describe the sort of relationship which
meets the statutory test of living together 'as husband and wife'. Once upon a time it might have been difficult
to apply those words to a same sex relationship because both in law and in reality the roles of the husband
and wife were so different and those differences were defined by their genders. That is no longer the case.
17
Centre for Comparative European Survey Data, 'British Social Attitudes Survey 1983' (britsocat.com)
<http://www.britsocat.com/> accessed 20 August 2014
18
Centre for Comparative European Survey Data, 'British Social Attitudes Survey 2013' (britsocat.com)
<http://www.britsocat.com/> accessed 20 August 2014
19
John Bingham, 'Silver sinners? How decline of taboos about sex is transforming life for over-85s'
(telegraph.co.uk 2013) <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/> accessed 19 August 2014
Mateusz Bernatek, Independent Project in Law, 1360066

In the 1950s, the era when the school children were warned about sinful ‘pre-marital
sex’, ‘shotgun weddings’20 were a common thing and unmarried mothers were considered a
horrifying humiliation to their families, cohabitation did not enjoy a widely popular opinion
within society21. The oppression of women was correspondingly extended to their
professional life, making career choices incredibly limited. Professional training was deemed
wasted on women, because it was presumed that they would leave employment when they
married. However, since the 1970s the attitudes seem to have changed so significantly that
the marriage rate is currently the lowest it has ever been since 189522. In contrast
cohabitation is on a steady rise across all age groups according to the Office for National
Statistics23. The remarkable decade that laid out the foundations for the social change in the
UK was the 1960s, which are most notably remembered for the “sexual revolution”24.

It is said that the revolution itself started with the unsuccessful prosecution of D. H.
Lawrence’s novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover, which had been banned since the 1920s for what
its contemporaries considered “racy content”. Magazines like Penthouse were launched
which made the pornography industry flourish like never before. At the same time it was
discovered through a variety of surveys that pre- and extra-marital sexual experience was
more widespread than was originally presumed. Consequently, because the results of such
surveys were widely available to the public, such behaviour gradually became normalised.
Therefore, with new avenues to explore their sexuality and experience sex without the need
for getting married, people progressively found fewer and fewer incentives to marry. Quite
possibly the most important outcome brought about by the “sexual revolution” was
demolishing the assumption “that wives should be content with dutiful submission to their
husband’s demands”25.

It was not until almost a decade later that opposite-sex cohabitation became
statistically significant. Not surprisingly this type of living arrangement was the most popular
amongst the younger generation. The General Household Survey in 1979 found that 9% of

20
According to Cambridge Dictionary of English “a marriage that is arranged very quickly and suddenly because
the woman is pregnant”
21
Op. cit. at note 1 p 73
22
Ibid p 74
23
E Beaujouan and M N Bhrolcháin, Cohabitation and Marriage in Britain Since the 1970s (ONS, Southampton
2011) 5 - 6
24
Op. cit. at note 1 p 75
25
Ibid p 76
Mateusz Bernatek, Independent Project in Law, 1360066

never-married women aged 18 – 29 were living with their boyfriend. However, the
assumption was nevertheless that they would marry eventually26. At the same time the
legislature attempted to modernise the divorce law. The introduction of the Divorce Reform
Act 1969 allowed couples who could not end their marriage under the previous law to do
so, which led to a spectacular increase in the divorce rate27. It was feared that many wives
would be “discarded” in favour of younger women. This major change and the modern
approach to the institution of marriage combined with the divorce law reform and the
apparent need to protect the victims of it led to increased attention from the family law
professionals and to Brenda Hoggett’s, now Baroness Hale of Richmond, famous comment:
“The modern preoccupation with such protection had led to the virtual abandonment of any
attempt to ‘buttress’ the stability of marriage, and thus called in[to] question the usefulness
of the institution itself”28.

It can be said with conviction that aforementioned social developments are not the
only ones to influence this remarkable change in attitudes to marriage and cohabitation.
However, it is clear that the 1960s sexual revolution additionally fuelled by the feminist
critique which challenged the traditional views of this patriarchal and simply archaic
institution produced a significantly more liberal generation. As that generation got older it
was replaced by another equally or even more liberal one, which gradually resulted in the
shift towards a less conservative view of marriage and cohabitation 29. This trend continues
and potentially at one point in the near future social attitudes will be reflected in the
equalised legal treatment of married and unmarried families.

Property division upon the divorce

The breakdown of cohabitation is equally as difficult and problematic for the parties
involved as the breakdown of marriage. Both involve a great deal of emotional distress and,
in a great majority of cases, an attempt to deal with a division of the couple’s most valuable
asset – the family home. Unfortunately it does not mean that the law in England and Wales

26
Ibid at p 79
27
Ibid at p 78
28
B Hogget, 'Ends and means: the utility of marriage as a legal institution' in J M Eekelaar and S N Katz
(eds), Marriage and Cohabitation in Contemporary Societies: Areas of Legal, Social and Ethical
Change (Butterworths, London 1980)
29
A Barlow, S Duncan, G James and A Park, Cohabitation, Marriage and the Law: Social Change and Legal
Reform in the 21st Century (1st, Hart, Oxford 2005) 25
Mateusz Bernatek, Independent Project in Law, 1360066

provide the same legal protection for separating cohabitants as it does for divorcing
spouses. The courts are given a wide scope of statutory jurisdiction under the Matrimonial
Causes Act 1973 when dealing with a redistribution of property rights upon the breakdown
of marriage30. Section 25 of the Act clearly and elaborately outlines matters which the
courts have to consider when exercising their power. Most notably non-financial
contributions to the welfare of the family are to be treated on equal footing with the
financial ones. This provision gives court an ability to widely interpret the non-financial
contributions and these can involve anything from taking care of the children to doing
housework and gardening. Ultimately the law strives to provide for the economically weaker
party and offer them an opportunity to start an independent life without having to worry
about their financial situation. It is beyond the scope of this essay to discuss whether that
practice is considered fair, however, the recent case of Radmacher v Granatino31 sparked a
great deal of criticism as to the court’s gender bias and its willingness to grant women
greater awards in divorce proceedings32. It is a surprising result considering the decades of
battle the feminist movement had spent fighting for the recognition of women’s equal
footing in society. It appears that the prevalence of the institution of marriage has resulted
in some deeply rooted inequality, which in turn led to questionable decisions in courts with
regards to the division of the matrimonial assets. This time, however, it was in favour of
women, but at the same time undermining the common understanding of the concept of
fairness. It is important to note that this brief discussion in no way represents the whole
scope of the divorce law and merely attempts to acquaint the reader with the main striking
difference when dealing with property division of a married couple.

30
L West, 'Cohabitants and constrictive trusts after Jones v Kernott' [2013] Private Client Yearbook 52
31
[2010] UKSC 42
32
C Jenkins, 'Are pre- and post-marital agreements finally worth the paper they are written on?' [2011] PCB 30
Mateusz Bernatek, Independent Project in Law, 1360066

Debunking the common law marriage myth

The concept of common law marriage is one that has been around for decades. In the
2000 British Social Attitudes survey it was found that 56% of respondents believed that
cohabitants and married couples were treated equally in law33. This indicates that in 2000
the belief in common law marriage was widespread within the British population. However,
over a decade later a survey conducted by the charity One Plus One in 2013 found that 47%
of UK citizens believe that cohabitants are treated on equal footing with married couples. At
the same time 58% of people of all ages did not know that common law marriage is not a
recognised legal status34.

With cohabitation becoming the fastest growing family type the results of those
surveys are worrying. It appears that the majority of cohabitants live unaware of the fact
that upon the breakdown of their relationship, they are not able to rely on the same laws as
married couples would. There are many ways in which cohabitants are treated differently
than their married equivalents. A good example of that is inheritance law. If one party of a
cohabiting relationship dies intestate, the other unfortunately does not automatically
inherit their estate, regardless of the length of the relationship. However, the most
important misconception is a belief that living together will grant the couple equal rights on
separation to those a married couple enjoys upon divorce35. This includes the way a jointly
owned property is dealt with, which is the focus of the next section.

Property division of unmarried couples

The main difference between the management of property disputes of married and
unmarried couples is that the latter does not at present have any statutory basis. Therefore,
the only way courts can deal with such cases is by using their own, subjective and
theoretically unbiased view of fairness. What courts perceive to be a fair outcome can,
however, be far from what the parties to the dispute see it to be. This is especially
applicable in cases where one partner was entirely financially dependent on the other
during a long term cohabiting relationship.

33
Op. cit. at note 29 p 28
34
Mansfield, 'Nearly half of UK citizens believe in the common law marriage myth' (oneplusone.org.uk 2013)
<http://www.oneplusone.org.uk/> accessed 20 August 2014
35
Richard Adams, 'The Myth of the 'Common Law Marriage' and How It Can Affect You' (huffingtonpost.co.uk
2013) <http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/> accessed 20 August 2014
Mateusz Bernatek, Independent Project in Law, 1360066

Entirely due to the fact that there is no equivalent of the ‘divorce law’ for cohabitants,
the rigid rules of property law apply36. Therefore, in an ideal situation an unmarried couple
is expected to expressly state their beneficial share in the property they plan to purchase
together before the actual purchase takes place. However, the situation for most
cohabitants is far from ideal. Couples who reached the stage in their relationship when they
decide to buy a property, which will vest in both of their names, in most cases do not plan
for failure. Even though solicitors instructed by an unmarried couple to purchase a property
have a duty to provide enough information for that couple to make an informed choice,
most fail to do so, despite many judicial warnings37. Most notably Ward LJ in Carlton v
Goodman38 sternly reminded conveyancers that they would save their clients a great deal of
difficulty if only they sat them down, found out exactly what the parties want and explain in
detail how they can achieve it. One cannot blame solicitors entirely, since planning for
failure of the relationship would be considered hugely pessimistic and consequently is often
avoided by couples completely.

Therefore when a couple decides to buy a property in joint names, having made
hugely disproportionate financial contributions and failing to protect their beneficial
interest, the presumption of the court is always that “equity follows the law” 39. What that
means is regardless of the amount of the initial contribution to the purchase price the
beneficial entitlement mirrors the legal one and each party ends up with 50%. This solution
may have made sense in the past in a different socio-economic climate, where it was always
the husband who was considered a breadwinner and the law used a doctrine of
presumption of advancement. Simply speaking the greater financial contribution was
considered a gift to the wife. In Pettitt v Pettitt40 it was recognised that this type of
presumption was considered simply discriminatory in the modern world, through an
obvious patriarchal approach to the problem, and complete disregard to unmarried couples.

36
H Wood, D Bishop, D Lush, A Murray and J Eams, Cohabitation: Law, Practices and Precedents (5th, Family
Law, Bristol 2012) 14
37
Ibid p 2
38
[2002] 2 FLR 259
39
Op. cit. at note 6
40
[1970] AC 777
Mateusz Bernatek, Independent Project in Law, 1360066

This outdated doctrine will be repealed when section 199 of the Equality Act 2010 is finally
brought into force41.

The concept of fairness

The idea of fairness upon deciding cases with a family home in question has been
discussed in courts for many decades. First in Gissing v Gissing42 Lord Diplock strived to give
effect of the common intention of both parties, as to the way they intended to share the
beneficial interest, and through that determining what he perceived a fair share. In Oxley v
Hiscock43 Chadwick LJ attempted to further the court’s definition of fairness, this time with
regards to an unmarried couple, and said that “each is entitled to that share which the court
considers fair having regard to the whole course of dealings between them in relation to the
property”44. The same approach was then taken by the House of Lords in Stack v Dowden45
and the whole course of dealings was looked at. What made the case exceptional was the
party’s strict division of finances and a shared intention, which was inferred by the court. It
was then, however, that Baroness Hale questioned the fairness criterion and said that the
court’s view of fairness was not necessarily the right one. Lady Hale made another ground
breaking observation and said that despite what the strict application of law may indicate, it
is possible for parties’ intentions to change over time, therefore resulting in a variation of
their beneficial shares46. Finally in Jones v Kernott47 in a joint judgement given by Lady Hale
and Lord Walker it was found that the only reasonable solution to provide fair and just
quantification of the beneficial share was to ask the parties what their intention would have
been, had they thought about it at the time. This was a landmark decision which recognised
the otherwise obvious concept to most laymen that people’s intentions may indeed change
over time48. Lady Hale went on to say that once the intention was found, it was erroneous
for the court to impose a solution in contradiction to it, simply because it deemed it fair to
do so49.

41
See Baroness Hale in Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 at para 24
42
[1971] AC 886
43
[2005] Fam 211
44
See Chadwick LJ in Oxley v Hiscock [2005] Fam 211 at para 69
45
[2007] UKHL 17
46
Op. cit. at note 30
47
[2011] UKSC 53
48
Ibid. at para 48
49
Ibid. at para 46
Mateusz Bernatek, Independent Project in Law, 1360066

Given the widely criticised lack of legislation50 to enable courts to deal with property
disputes of unmarried couples efficiently and based on an appropriate statutory instrument,
it can be said that the concept of fairness currently devised by the courts is the best it has
ever been. It does not, however, in any way mean that the parties will always be satisfied
with the outcome. Current discrepancies in the law of property have led to a great deal of
litigation. Cases like Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott had been seen in the highest court
of the land, which most likely would not be the case had the parties been married.
Cohabitants when attempting to resolve a dispute with the aid of the court may end up
getting the result they desired. However, the cost of the proceedings, both financial and
emotional, is very often so high it begs a question whether it is, in fact, fair at all. In 2007 the
Law Commission was ordered to produce a report on Cohabitation: The financial
consequences of relationship breakdown51. The result of it was a proposed reform to
cohabitation law, which would grant qualifying cohabitants certain rights on separation, but
in no way would their legal position be equated with that of married couples. Since then,
however, the law seemed to have been almost entirely unresponsive. The 2013 – 14 session
of parliament has introduced Cohabitation Rights Bill [HL] 2013 – 2014 which made it only to
the first reading after which it was prorogued. It appears likely that the legislature is
apprehensive about making substantial changes to the law, which in essence would
undermine the “sacred” institution of marriage52.

Conclusion
This essay provided a comprehensive account of the way cohabitation in Britain has
evolved through many social changes that took place in society. From the feminist critique
of the institution of marriage and fight for liberation of women, through sexual revolution of
the 1960s, LGBT movement fighting for equal rights in every aspect of life, to the
recognition of the legal position of cohabitants. The main aim, however, was an attempt at
identifying the concept of fairness and its operation in disputes over the jointly owned
property of cohabitants. After discussing the most recent developments in the relevant case
law the courts have made an attempt at providing cohabitants with what they perceive to
be a fair outcome. However, it must be noted that unresponsiveness of the legislature is

50
Most recently by Lady Hale in Gow v Grant [2012] UKSC 29 at para 47
51
(Law Com No 307, 2007)
52
S Gardner and K M Davidson, 'The future of Stack v Dowden' [2011] Law Q. Rev. 13, 18
Mateusz Bernatek, Independent Project in Law, 1360066

disappointing and results in cohabitants having to spend tremendous amounts of time and
money in order to achieve it. At present one can only live with the hope of the next
Parliament making necessary changes in legislation to recognise rights of this increasingly
prevalent family type. To summarise, despite the judiciary making a great effort in
conveying their view of fairness, without appropriate statutory instruments it is a costly
(both to the claimant and the government), time consuming and unnecessary process.
Therefore, for the time being, the concept of fairness in this area is only something that
exists in theory.

Word count: 3469

Mateusz Bernatek, Independent Project in Law, 1360066

Bibliography
Books:

1. A Barlow, S Duncan, G James and A Park, Cohabitation, Marriage and the Law: Social
Change and Legal Reform in the 21st Century (1st, Hart, Oxford 2005)

2. J M Eekelaar and S N Katz, Marriage and Cohabitation in Contemporary Societies:

Areas of Legal, Social and Ethical Change (Butterworths, London 1980)

3. G Douglas, J Pearce and Hilary Woodward, A Failure of Trust: Resolving Property

Disputes on Cohabitation Breakdown (Cardiff Law School, Cardiff 2007)

4. A Hayden QC, M Allman, S Greenan, E Nhinda-Latvio and J Penna, Children and Same
Sex Families: A Legal Handbook (1st, Jordan Publishing Ltd, Bristol 2012)

5. J Herring, Family Law (6th, Pearson Education Ltd, Harlow 2013)

6. J E Martin, Modern Equity (19th, Sweet & Maxwell, London 2012)

7. H Wood, D Bishop, D Lush, A Murray and J Eams, Cohabitation: Law, Practices and
Precedents (5th, Family Law, Bristol 2012)

Journal Articles:

1. R Auchmuty, ‘Law and the Power of Feminism: How Marriage Lost its Power to
Oppress Women’ [2012] Fem Leg Stud 71

2. A Diduck, 'Fairness and justice for all? The House of Lords in White v White' [2001]
Fem Legal Stud 173

3. S Gardner and K M Davidson, 'The future of Stack v Dowden' [2011] Law Q. Rev. 13

4. L Glennon, 'Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association LTD - an endorsement of the

functional family?' [2000] Int'l JL Pol'y & Fam 226

5. C Jenkins, 'Are pre- and post-marital agreements finally worth the paper they are
written on?' [2011] PCB 30
Mateusz Bernatek, Independent Project in Law, 1360066

6. M Pawlowski and J Brown ‘Co-ownership and Severance after Stack’

[2013] Tru. L.I. 59

7. M Pawlowski and J Brown ‘Co-owners and Severance - Determining Beneficial

Entitlement after Stack’ [2013] Tru. L.I. 172

8. M Pawlowski and J Brown, 'Calculating a variation in beneficial shares after Stack'

[2014] Tru. L.I. 18

9. N Piska, 'Intention, Fairness and the Presumption of Resulting Trust after Stack v
Dowden' [2008] MLR 120

10. R Propbert, 'Cohabitation in Twentieth Century England and Wales: Law and Policy'
[2004] Hamline J Pub L & Pol'y 13

11. L West, 'Cohabitants and constrictive trusts after Jones v Kernott' [2013] Private
Client Yearbook 52

Other Publications:

1. Office for National Statistics, Short Report: Cohabitation in the UK, 2012 (ONS,
Newport 2012)

2. Law Commission, Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship

Breakdown (Law Com No 307, 2007)

3. Law Commission, Sharing Homes: A Discussion Paper (Law Com No 278, 2002)

Primary Legislation:

1. Civil Partnership Act 2004

2. Divorce Reform Act 1969
3. Local Government Act 1988
4. Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013
5. Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
6. Sexual Offences Act 1967
Mateusz Bernatek, Independent Project in Law, 1360066

Cases:

1. Carlton v Goodman [2002] 2 FLR 259

2. Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association [1999] 2 FLR 1027
3. Ghaidon v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30
4. Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886
5. Gow v Grant [2012] UKSC 29
6. Oxley v Hiscock [2004] EWCA Civ 546
7. Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53
8. Petitt v Petitt [1970] AC 777
9. Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42
10. Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17

Websites:

1. Richard Adams, 'The Myth of the 'Common Law Marriage' and How It Can Affect You'
(huffingtonpost.co.uk 2013) <http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/> accessed 20
August 2014
2. John Bingham, 'Silver sinners? How decline of taboos about sex is transforming life
for over-85s' (telegraph.co.uk 2013) <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/> accessed 19
August 2014
3. Centre for Comparative European Survey Data, 'British Social Attitudes Survey 1983'
(britsocat.com) <http://www.britsocat.com/> accessed 20 August 2014
4. Centre for Comparative European Survey Data, 'British Social Attitudes Survey 2013'
(britsocat.com) <http://www.britsocat.com/> accessed 20 August 2014
5. Geraldine Bedell, 'Coming out of the dark ages' (theguardian.com 2007)
<http://www.theguardian.com/> accessed 20 August 2014
6. Mansfield, 'Nearly half of UK citizens believe in the common law marriage myth'
(oneplusone.org.uk 2013) <http://www.oneplusone.org.uk/> accessed 20 August
2014
7. Sir Ian McKellen, 'Section 28' (stonewall.org.uk) <http://www.stonewall.org.uk/>
accessed 20 August 2014
Mateusz Bernatek, Independent Project in Law, 1360066

8. ONS, ‘Families and Households’ (ons.gov.uk 2013) <http://www.ons.gov.uk/>

accessed 18 August 2014
9. ONS, ‘Population Estimates by Marital Status’ (Statistics.gov.uk 2011)
<http://www.ons.gov.uk/> accessed 18 August 2014
10. 'About ILGA' (ilga.org 2014) <http://ilga.org/> accessed 20 August 2014
11. 'History of London Pride' (lgbthistoryuk.org) <http://www.lgbthistoryuk.org/>
accessed 20 August 2014