i        
         

cohabitation-prior-to-marriage
General Disclaimer: Nothing presented constitutes legal advice and the McKenzie Friend UK Network is not a legal entity or in anyway claims to be a 'legal resource'. The resource guide is supported by McKenzie Friends and Litigants in person for Litigants in Person in Family Court. McKenzie Friends provide layperson support as an informed friend under the Family Court Practice Guidance of 2010. All information is published under the spirit of that guidance. For any corrections of the information, please contact the McKenzie Friend UK Network
 
Cohabitation Prior ro Marriage
 
 
In the case of  GW v RW [2003] EWHC 611 (Fam) , Mostyn stated that, “where a relationship moves seamlessly from cohabitation into marriage without any major alteration in the way the couple live, it is unreal and artificial to treat the periods differently.  On the other hand, if it is found that the pre-marital cohabitation was on the basis of a trial period to see if there is any basis for later marriage then I would be of the view that it would not be right to be included as part of the ‘duration of marriage’”. The majority of couples today tend to live together before they get married, and such a period of seamless cohabitation therefore will elongate the marriage for the Court’s purposes.
 
 
Thew case of VV v VV [2022] EWFC 41 is a recent judgment of Mr Justice Peel in relation to a case dealing with the division of assets in financial remedy proceedings following a short marriage.

The case examines the extent of pre-marital cohabitation and the effect of this on the sharing principle

The couple were married for five months and did not have any children. The wife (W) said they began living together in November 2018, while the husband (H) said the date was in December 2019.

A consideration related to seamless cohabitation prior to the marriage and the effect on the sharing principle; the principle that the matrimonial assets will be shared equally between the parties unless there is a good reason they should not be. Mr Justice Peel found that until December 2019 the parties had been in a committed relationship, but cohabitation did not begin until H moved to the UK. W asserted that she was entitled to the proceeds of the sale of AB shares, as she played a significant role in helping H acquire the role at AB Company. However, Mr Justice Peel rejected this as the parties were at an early stage in their relationship and W had little knowledge of the technology industry. The engagement in March 2019 was also not considered a factor capable of invoking the sharing principle. Mr Justice Peel stated: ‘The essential inquiry is whether the pre-marital relationship is of such a nature as to be treated as akin to marriage.’ As a result, it was decided that as all relevant assets had been acquired before cohabitation began in December 2019, the sharing claim should be rejected.

 
 
 
 
Share by: