Forget marriage, now you can't even just live with them...
Discussion
steveatesh said:
Judge has been reading this thread by the look of things
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2800896/ma...
From article:
"Sir Nicholas Mostyn, 57, said that there was no difference between the relationships of married and unmarried couples, and condemned the divorce system that gives special protection to wives."
Maybe the perceived bias in favor of women in this context is true?
BV, is there a real bias in favor of women in this part of the legal system, or is the judge wrong?
Some context here, from 2012.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2800896/ma...
From article:
"Sir Nicholas Mostyn, 57, said that there was no difference between the relationships of married and unmarried couples, and condemned the divorce system that gives special protection to wives."
Maybe the perceived bias in favor of women in this context is true?
BV, is there a real bias in favor of women in this part of the legal system, or is the judge wrong?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113288/Si...
Article said:
He left her for another woman. Now the spurned wife of High Court judge Sir Nicholas Mostyn faces losing the £6million home she adores.
The judge has put the 117-acre Hertfordshire estate the couple used to share on the market – despite the fact that he and wife Lucy, 53, have yet to reach a divorce settlement.
Lady Mostyn would need to find £4.75million to keep living there.
She spent almost half of her 31-year marriage living at the nine-bedroom house on the edge of the commuter village of Little Berkhamsted in Hertforshire. There she raised her four children by Sir Nicholas, 54.
Lady Mostyn has been barred from talking about the divorce, according to her husband’s solicitor.
But there would appear to be no obvious sign yet of a Decree Absolute which would officially mark the end of the couple’s marriage.
When The Mail on Sunday asked Lady Mostyn about her home being put up for sale, she said with a shake of the head: ‘I cannot talk to you.’
Sir Nicholas was one of the country’s top divorce lawyers before he became a family court judge.
The judge has put the 117-acre Hertfordshire estate the couple used to share on the market – despite the fact that he and wife Lucy, 53, have yet to reach a divorce settlement.
Lady Mostyn would need to find £4.75million to keep living there.
She spent almost half of her 31-year marriage living at the nine-bedroom house on the edge of the commuter village of Little Berkhamsted in Hertforshire. There she raised her four children by Sir Nicholas, 54.
Lady Mostyn has been barred from talking about the divorce, according to her husband’s solicitor.
But there would appear to be no obvious sign yet of a Decree Absolute which would officially mark the end of the couple’s marriage.
When The Mail on Sunday asked Lady Mostyn about her home being put up for sale, she said with a shake of the head: ‘I cannot talk to you.’
Sir Nicholas was one of the country’s top divorce lawyers before he became a family court judge.
turbobloke said:
wolves_wanderer said:
Colonial said:
Serious answer time.
This is how the defacto partner arrangements work in Australia. I'm really quite surprised the UK hasn't moved beyond the Victorian era and expanded existing legislation in a similar way.
http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/Brochuresand...
I don't see why not being married should mean anything in a long term relationship and the equitable division of assets.
Yep. Trying to be clever and keeping all the assets in his name has backfired. I guess the standard PH advice about living with a woman...This is how the defacto partner arrangements work in Australia. I'm really quite surprised the UK hasn't moved beyond the Victorian era and expanded existing legislation in a similar way.
http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/Brochuresand...
I don't see why not being married should mean anything in a long term relationship and the equitable division of assets.
Colonial said:
VeeDubBigBird said:
Seems like a fair judgment given the explanation for the ruling. He's basically giving back what was deemed reasonable losses she incurred by moving into his house at today's inflation rates. If the judged had decided they were Cohabitees then she might have been rewarded a lot more.
And given that they were together for 14 years its reasonable to assume that the relationship was serious and not just some fling.
But. A. Woman. Got. Money. And given that they were together for 14 years its reasonable to assume that the relationship was serious and not just some fling.
It's Political Correctness gone mad.
superlightr said:
Reading the whole article and trusting the c of a. I would agree she is entitled to something. She gave up work and a flat effectivly she was acting as a wife for 12 years which enabled him to prosper in his work as he would have done so with a wife.
I disagree. To be entitled to something should require marriage or civil partnership. That's what it's for. I've kept off this thread up to now because it does seem to be a pointless debate over irreconcilable views.
However, regarding the last point, are you suggesting that there can only be legally enforceable obligations when a written and signed contract is in place - such as a marriage or civil partnership contract?
If that is the case, then you are more or less saying that the concept of a verbal contract does not apply when it comes to personal relationships - even though it applies to all other walks of life.
However, regarding the last point, are you suggesting that there can only be legally enforceable obligations when a written and signed contract is in place - such as a marriage or civil partnership contract?
If that is the case, then you are more or less saying that the concept of a verbal contract does not apply when it comes to personal relationships - even though it applies to all other walks of life.
Life isn't as clear cut as that.
In law, there is the principle of "Implied Contract" - which does not require a written or verbal agreement. Actions carried out by the parties involved can "imply" that a contract was in place - perhaps without the parties really recognising this fact.
It is only when things "go bad" that the realisation might dawn on one or both parties that, yes, there was an agreement in place, even though they hadn't ever mentioned it up to that point.
That may all sound a bit vague - and it can be - but the legal principle is there, and it can apply to relationships as well as to business or other areas of life.
In law, there is the principle of "Implied Contract" - which does not require a written or verbal agreement. Actions carried out by the parties involved can "imply" that a contract was in place - perhaps without the parties really recognising this fact.
It is only when things "go bad" that the realisation might dawn on one or both parties that, yes, there was an agreement in place, even though they hadn't ever mentioned it up to that point.
That may all sound a bit vague - and it can be - but the legal principle is there, and it can apply to relationships as well as to business or other areas of life.
Eric Mc said:
Life isn't as clear cut as that.
In law, there is the principle of "Implied Contract" - which does not require a written or verbal agreement. Actions carried out by the parties involved can "imply" that a contract was in place - perhaps without the parties really recognising this fact.
It is only when things "go bad" that the realisation might dawn on one or both parties that, yes, there was an agreement in place, even though they hadn't ever mentioned it up to that point.
That may all sound a bit vague - and it can be - but the legal principle is there, and it can apply to relationships as well as to business or other areas of life.
In this case, his obligation post-split has been assessed and he will have to pay, reflecting perhaps some unwritten element of a disputed verbal contract relating to the circumstances of this example of cohabitation. In law, there is the principle of "Implied Contract" - which does not require a written or verbal agreement. Actions carried out by the parties involved can "imply" that a contract was in place - perhaps without the parties really recognising this fact.
It is only when things "go bad" that the realisation might dawn on one or both parties that, yes, there was an agreement in place, even though they hadn't ever mentioned it up to that point.
That may all sound a bit vague - and it can be - but the legal principle is there, and it can apply to relationships as well as to business or other areas of life.
She supported him in their home (his house) in a wifely manner though not as a wife, and he supported her and her daughters financially and by providing a rent-free roof over their heads. She expected for ever and ever, and believed this to be contractual in some way. Going forward, he pays something as per the ruling.
In which case why was there not an order for his washing and ironing to be dropped off over regular intervals at her new flat for a certain period, collecting cooked meals at the same time, reflecting his expectations going forward? Clearly with no relationship there won't be an order for jiggyness as neither side would wish it so, but there is a financial element to cooking, washing and cleaning. His expectations appear to be dimissed summarily as it's not clear from the judgement how they were taken into account.
wolves_wanderer said:
turbobloke said:
wolves_wanderer said:
Colonial said:
Serious answer time.
This is how the defacto partner arrangements work in Australia. I'm really quite surprised the UK hasn't moved beyond the Victorian era and expanded existing legislation in a similar way.
http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/Brochuresand...
I don't see why not being married should mean anything in a long term relationship and the equitable division of assets.
Yep. Trying to be clever and keeping all the assets in his name has backfired. I guess the standard PH advice about living with a woman...This is how the defacto partner arrangements work in Australia. I'm really quite surprised the UK hasn't moved beyond the Victorian era and expanded existing legislation in a similar way.
http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/Brochuresand...
I don't see why not being married should mean anything in a long term relationship and the equitable division of assets.
OllieC said:
Colonial said:
VeeDubBigBird said:
Seems like a fair judgment given the explanation for the ruling. He's basically giving back what was deemed reasonable losses she incurred by moving into his house at today's inflation rates. If the judged had decided they were Cohabitees then she might have been rewarded a lot more.
And given that they were together for 14 years its reasonable to assume that the relationship was serious and not just some fling.
But. A. Woman. Got. Money. And given that they were together for 14 years its reasonable to assume that the relationship was serious and not just some fling.
It's Political Correctness gone mad.
And the political correctness is reflected not in getting money but in the head-patting of women from those unable to stomach anything even mildly critical of this delicate subspecies.
turbobloke said:
In this case, his obligation post-split has been assessed and he will have to pay, reflecting perhaps some unwritten element of a disputed verbal contract relating to the circumstances of this example of cohabitation.
She supported him in their home (his house) in a wifely manner though not as a wife, and he supported her and her daughters financially and by providing a rent-free roof over their heads. She expected for ever and ever, and believed this to be contractual in some way. Going forward, he pays something as per the ruling.
In which case why was there not an order for his washing and ironing to be dropped off over regular intervals at her new flat for a certain period, collecting cooked meals at the same time, reflecting his expectations going forward? Clearly with no relationship there won't be an order for jiggyness as neither side would wish it so, but there is a financial element to cooking, washing and cleaning. His expectations appear to be dimissed summarily as it's not clear from the judgement how they were taken into account.
Who knows?She supported him in their home (his house) in a wifely manner though not as a wife, and he supported her and her daughters financially and by providing a rent-free roof over their heads. She expected for ever and ever, and believed this to be contractual in some way. Going forward, he pays something as per the ruling.
In which case why was there not an order for his washing and ironing to be dropped off over regular intervals at her new flat for a certain period, collecting cooked meals at the same time, reflecting his expectations going forward? Clearly with no relationship there won't be an order for jiggyness as neither side would wish it so, but there is a financial element to cooking, washing and cleaning. His expectations appear to be dimissed summarily as it's not clear from the judgement how they were taken into account.
Eric Mc said:
turbobloke said:
In this case, his obligation post-split has been assessed and he will have to pay, reflecting perhaps some unwritten element of a disputed verbal contract relating to the circumstances of this example of cohabitation.
She supported him in their home (his house) in a wifely manner though not as a wife, and he supported her and her daughters financially and by providing a rent-free roof over their heads. She expected for ever and ever, and believed this to be contractual in some way. Going forward, he pays something as per the ruling.
In which case why was there not an order for his washing and ironing to be dropped off over regular intervals at her new flat for a certain period, collecting cooked meals at the same time, reflecting his expectations going forward? Clearly with no relationship there won't be an order for jiggyness as neither side would wish it so, but there is a financial element to cooking, washing and cleaning. His expectations appear to be dismissed summarily as it's not clear from the judgement how they were taken into account.
Who knows?She supported him in their home (his house) in a wifely manner though not as a wife, and he supported her and her daughters financially and by providing a rent-free roof over their heads. She expected for ever and ever, and believed this to be contractual in some way. Going forward, he pays something as per the ruling.
In which case why was there not an order for his washing and ironing to be dropped off over regular intervals at her new flat for a certain period, collecting cooked meals at the same time, reflecting his expectations going forward? Clearly with no relationship there won't be an order for jiggyness as neither side would wish it so, but there is a financial element to cooking, washing and cleaning. His expectations appear to be dismissed summarily as it's not clear from the judgement how they were taken into account.
It should be made clear, and it wasn't. Would you care to offer odds on the matter?
Eric Mc said:
Is there?
calling Sir Nicholas Mostyn for a ruling on implied comment 
A bit o' witty banter of only tangential relevance:
https://stephentwist.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/p...
From here:
https://stephentwist.wordpress.com/tag/sir-nichola...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff