Forget marriage, now you can't even just live with them...
Discussion
For clarity, as some may not know this, mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution in which the parties attempt to resolve their differences by agreement, with a trained mediator acting as a deal broker. If a party unreasonably refuses to engage in mediation, the court may later apply a costs sanction, regardless of the outcome of the litigation.
Red 4 said:
Can someone point me in the direction of the nearest monastery - a small one, suitable only for a hermit would be preferable
You don't really need to go to those lengths to avoid such a situation...The ruling does seem a bit odd, but then I guess we don't know every last ounce of what was presented. I also find the rulings in some divorce cases very bizarre (as someone noted above, I see little difference in a couple being married or a couple cohabiting for that length of time - our laws in that respect are outmoded IMO). But there's a very easy way not to be subject to these things.
sugerbear said:
turbobloke said:
Back on-topic, local news coverage of the story is here.
That story has more holes than a very hole based swiss cheese that has spent the night at a mouse party.Red 4 said:
Murph7355 said:
But there's a very easy way not to be subject to these things.
Which is ?Red 4 said:
Murph7355 said:
But there's a very easy way not to be subject to these things.
Which is ?This may, of course, limit your options.
Murph7355 said:
This may, of course, limit your options.
It does.To be honest I can see both sides of the argument - however, there will only ever be one loser financially in circumstances such as this.
A 12 year live-in relationship may justify some monetary settlement - however, there are plenty of gold-diggers out there.
Impasse said:
Pre-nup. Make them a recognised arrangement.
Following a Supreme Court decision made in 2010, pre nups can now have compelling or persuasive weight, but their efficacy depends on the facts in any give case. Agreements between unmarried co-habitees are likely to be upheld, absent some strong factor compelling a contrary decision. 
Terminator X said:
"left her homeless"? Is she unable to rent 
TX.
Not really he paid her rent for 6 months and she had a job that doubled her salary after he helped pay for her university education.TX.
Just noticed he was going to pay they £28k and she then appealed again and got him to pay her £50k of legal fees.
That sounds a bit off... go to court, don't like decision, rack up loads more costs and keep going until another judge awards the costs against the other party.
grumbledoak said:
No nuptials! You would need a pre-cohabiting agreement both written and binding.
Indeed. Let's expand on that. Let's have the presumption that upon breakdown of relations, you are only automatically entitled to what you (financially) brought into the relationship to be reinstated as long as circumstances allow. That should be considered as the norm and then do away with the requirement for a signed agreement. Anything over and above this would need to be discussed and agreed on. And pillow talk should not be considered a binding declaration of intent.
Breadvan72 said:
I think that you are misreading the account of what happened. It was the bloke who appealed. Costs usually follow the event (ie the loser usually pays).
Not really....He was asked to pay her £28k.
She then took it back to court and got all her costs.
He tried to appeal that and lost.
If she only got the £28k, it was still more than enough if all the rest of what he has paid out is in fact true...
Now it looks like he's in a worse financial situation then when he met her.
£140k equity moved on with £100k mortgage, house now worth £320k.
His equity should be above £220k+
Now he has to pay £100k court costs (hers and his) and £28k in living costs.
Thats no including the tens of thousands he's spent over the years on her and her family.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff