is cohabiting equal to marriage in the eyes of the law?
A recent Court of Appeal
ruling in Amicus Horizon v Estate of Judy Mabott (M) &
Anthony Brand (B), held that an unmarried couple who had lived
together for ten years had not been living together as
husband and wife and so there was no right to
succession.
M had been the sole assured
tenant of a flat for 12 years until her death. She had
lived there with her young daughter. For the
last ten years of her life B had lived
there. On M's death, possession was sought. B
claimed that he had succeeded to the tenancy. The judge
found that although M and B had had a loving, lasting and
important relationship, M had been keen to preserve her
independence. They had not lived together as husband and
wife. B appealed claiming that the judge had applied a
subjective, rather than objective test when deciding if they
had lived as husband and wife and had placed too much weight
on M's desire to remain independent.
The C of A upheld the
decision. The judge had been well aware of the legal
notions that made a relationship akin to a marriage. Although
they outwardly gave the impression that they had an
important and lasting relationship, M could not commit
to B in a way characterised by a husband and wife
relationship and they had claimed benefits
separately. That was not a public affirmation of a husband
and wife relationship. The judge had set out his findings and
his decision was not perverse.
what this means for social landlords
This reiterates that cohabitees are not necessarily living as
husband and wife, and that it is for the
would-be successor
to prove.
