“CRUELTY”, COMMITMENT AND COHABITATION 

Published on 28 March, 2025 | Emily Williams

When couples decide to live together, one of the key components which can determine whether their relationship will succeed or not is the degree to which they are committed to one another.

Commitment is generally regarded as being essential in building a stable home environment for themselves and any children which they may have.

That is true irrespective of whether the individuals in question are married or choose to cohabit instead.

As one recent case has illustrated, however, commitment can be a “bone of contention” which, when tested, demonstrates the different rights afforded to spouses and those in unmarried relationships should they not remain together.

The case pitted a multi-millionaire businessman, Mark Austin, against Christina Haynes, the former partner with whom he had two children.

The Times reported that they had met in 2000 and, according to Ms Haynes, were initially “blissfully happy”, moving into a mansion in west London (https://www.thetimes.com/article/870d445a-982a-48d6-a6c4-766c9551c60d?shareToken=7813259ce3b05d89f78ffc044bf23c87).

However, the couple eventually split in 2018 after which Mr Austin agreed to make various provisions for Ms Haynes and their children, including £2.75 million for a house, a lump sum of £200,000 to his ex and the cost of a nanny.

The order which contained the terms of that agreement noted that Mr Austin wanted to take professional advice about how best to make the payment for the new house in a tax-efficient manner.

When the money wasn’t paid, Ms Haynes returned to court, in addition claiming that Mr Austin had in fact promised her half the value of the £18 million home where the couple had resided.

The promise, The Times wrote, was made during the course of “a luxurious lunch in 2014 in the Liechtenstein Alps”.

Yet that meeting was nothing more than an “elaborate performance” at a time when the relationship was under pressure due to Ms Haynes’ wish to marry.

Sitting in the High Court, Joanne Wicks KC ruled that while the circumstances could reasonably be considered a “cruelty”, the promise extended to Ms Haynes was “insufficient to give her legal rights”.

The drama spelled out during the court proceedings and the wealth which the couple enjoyed are not necessarily similar to many of the cases handled by myself and my colleagues.

That said, we have found ourselves dealing with an increasing number of cohabiting couples whose relationships have foundered.

When that happens, it comes as a surprise to some that they do not have the same rights to make a claim for financial support on each other as spouses do. Despite efforts to raise awareness to the contrary, there is a lingering belief in the myth of the ‘common law spouse’.

In recent years, such a predicament has arguably become even more of a concern, given the number of people who set up home together without formalising their relationships.

Figures published last year by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that there were 6,834,418 cohabitees in 2022 – up almost 73 per cent in 20 years (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationestimatesbymaritalstatusandlivingarrangements/2022).

As it stands, when cohabiting couples break up, they have no recourse under family law but have to rely on civil law – namely, the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act (TOLATA) 1996 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/47/contents) – unless they have children.

Various reports, such as one issued by the House of Commons’ Women and Equalities Committee, have concluded that the absence of a family law framework for cohabitees means that the “financially weaker partner can end up with nothing” after what might have been a long relationship (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmwomeq/92/report.html).

Couples have increasingly been taking matters into their own hands, adopting cohabitation agreements that record their respective assets when they begin living together.

As my colleague Alison Fernandes wrote only last month on this ‘blog (https://hallbrown.co.uk/households-hardship-and-the-promise-of-cohabitation-rights/), though, change might be at hand.

The Government has announced plans for a consultation later this year on whether the law on cohabitation rights should be reformed.

Even if that consultation determines that legislation is advisable, it may still be some time before such new law takes its place on the Statute Book.

In the interim, it is not pessimistic to assume that more cohabiting relationships will come to an end.

There is no data for how frequent such breakdowns are but, if we use the ONS’ numbers on divorce as a guide, we can see that 41 per cent of marriages have ended that way within 25 years of the individuals involved exchanging vows (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2022).

For those wishing to avoid the kind of cost, complication and “cruelty” which was detailed during the court hearings featuring Mark Austin and Christina Haynes, the best option is clearly a cohabitation agreement.

Whilst it is certainly no guarantee of unmarried relationships lasting the distance, it can at least offer the kind of clarity which can allow those involved to part on good terms, something which is especially important if they have children.

In addition, an increasing number of people now realise the benefits of trying to resolve the kind of disputes which can arise when couples split away from court rather than becoming embroiled in lengthy, costly and sometimes difficult litigation.

Methods such as mediation offer enable those involved to settle matters in a more constructive and often more amicable manner than a more adversarial route.