However, in other circumstances a refusal to marry because of the financial commitments it creates could form part of a campaign of economic abuse, for example where one party did not realise the consequences of a decision not to marry when agreeing to leave their job to become the primary carer for the parties’ children, or to sell their home, move into their partner’s property and use the sale proceeds of their home to meet the family’s outgoings while the other partner saved their own income.

The lack of financial rights on separation can also be used to coerce a partner to remain in a relationship, by telling the partner she will be unable to support herself if she leaves. 

A change in the law

The solution lies in education and reform of the law in this area, to introduce a coherent one-stop-shop statute that deals with the breakdown of a cohabiting relationship and the introduction of one or more prompts that compel individuals to think about their legal position. 

With a marriage this is straightforward. Everyone can point to the marriage ceremony. Anyone getting married knows it is a pivotal date on which the parties’ legal status will change. There is no such date for a cohabiting couple. Perhaps there should be. 

Potential pegs could be, where a child is born to the relationship, the registration of the child’s birth; alternatively, where a property is being purchased, it might be possible to add to the TR1 transfer documentation a tick box to propel the parties to take legal advice on the financial aspects of their relationship. 

Even where the property is being bought in sole names, and where there is a mortgage, the non-legal owning party is required to sign a declaration of no interest for the mortgagor, so this too could be a “peg” upon which to hang a recommendation or requirement to obtain legal advice. 

None of these are fail safes. But they are practical steps that can relatively easily be implemented to inform and educate and bring about a greater level of protection for the economically weaker party. 

This is not to say that marriage and any ensuing divorce litigation is a panacea, without the potential for economic abuse; far from it. But the statutory protection afforded by the Matrimonial Causes Act is solid and provides a real anchor-point of certainty for spouses in abusive relationships. 

Richard Kershaw is a partner at Hunters Law