• news-banner

    Expert Insights

We’re technically married, we just haven’t signed the papers. What’s the difference?

In light of the constantly changing restrictions surrounding public gatherings, it is not uncommon to hear of couples opting to delay their weddings and to cohabit in the interim. Many young couples treat this period as a “trial run” for marriage; some even deciding to forego marriage altogether, believing that officially signing the papers make little difference towards their day-to-day relationship. With the rise of the popular concept of a “common law marriage”, this has contributed to the belief that married and cohabitating partners are entitled to similar rights upon the breakdown of their relationship. This is not the case in Hong Kong.

There is no such thing as a “common law spouse” in Hong Kong. No matter how long the de facto relationship, parties do not have rights to apply for maintenance against the other, or be entitled to any capital sum, or a transfer of property. If the relationship turns sour, parties will be required to seek for relief by way of the general laws of contract or property. For example, if one party contributes towards the purchase price of their former home, but the property is legally held by their partner, they may argue they have a beneficial interest, including but not limited to a resulting trust, towards such property. Of course, this is much less straightforward than applying the safeguards under the regime for married partners.

Unmarried mothers can apply for financial relief on behalf of their children, such as monthly maintenance, lump sum provision and the transfer of property. This amount will only be for a “carer’s allowance”, which is considerably less than what the mother would have been able to apply for had she been married. With respect to unmarried fathers, they will not have the same parental rights as the mother, unless they issue an application to the Court.

Interestingly, parties in a de facto relationship are entitled to apply for injunctive relief in terms of domestic violence. This includes orders such as a non-molestation injunction, ouster injunction or occupation order. If, however, one party dies without a valid will, the rules of intestacy will not grant any division of the deceased’s estate to the other. Instead, the surviving party will be required to issue an application with the court, proving that they were maintained by the deceased prior to their death.

As seen from above, cohabiting parties have little legal protection upon the breakdown of their relationships, despite sharing property based on love and trust. For parties who maintain they do not want to enter into the institution of marriage, it is advised that they enter into a cohabitation agreement to set out the terms they would wish for a court to take into account should their relationship break down. This will avoid any misunderstandings in respect of the parties’ intention when purchasing property. Should parties choose to subsequently enter into marriage, a cohabitation agreement may also be used as a framework for a prenuptial agreement. Choosing to protect your interests, whether married or not, will always be a prudent approach. 

Our thinking

  • LCIA's 2024 Casework Report – Still Going Strong

    Dalal Alhouti

    Quick Reads

  • Jurisdictions: choosing the right base for your family office

    Insights

  • Family Investment Companies: Rising Popularity Amid Business Property Relief Changes

    Mary Perham

    Insights

  • ICC Arbitration Statistics 2024 – UAE Breaks into Top 5 Seats

    Dalal Alhouti

    Quick Reads

  • Offshore trusts: Have reports of their demise been greatly exaggerated?

    Dominic Lawrance

    Insights

  • Valuable assets protection from death, disputes, and divorce

    Sarah Jane Boon

    Insights

  • Parental responsibility = shared care… Or does it?

    Hilde Braaten Resseth

    Quick Reads

  • Next Gen: Upholding family values

    Elinor Boote

    Insights

  • Relocation: Important factors to consider before moving

    Insights

  • The Two Most Feared Foreign Tax Provisions in the One Big, Beautiful Bill: Now Eliminated or Defanged

    Ivan Lu

    Quick Reads

  • To share or not to share, that is the question. The Supreme Court hands down judgment in ‘big money’ divorce case Standish v Standish and clarifies the position regarding matrimonialisation and the sharing principle

    Miranda Fisher

    Insights

  • The decision in Standish Stands Up for Prenups – Huge boost for prenups as Supreme Court decision underscores asset protection

    Miranda Fisher

    Quick Reads

  • Upcoming Licensing Regimes for Virtual Asset Services in Hong Kong

    Gaven Cheong

    Quick Reads

  • Courts are not couples’ therapists - and that’s a good thing

    Neeva Desai

    Quick Reads

  • The Law Society Gazette quotes Miranda Fisher on the upcoming Supreme Court Standish v Standish judgment

    Miranda Fisher

    In the Press

  • Claims for Financial Relief in England After a UAE Divorce

    Sarah Jane Boon

    Insights

  • Arbitrating private wealth disputes

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

  • Starting up a Hedge Fund in Hong Kong? Should I Use a HK, BVI, or Cayman Islands Structure?

    Gaven Cheong

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes two new Dispute Resolution Partners in Singapore

    Stewart Hey

    News

  • Avoiding a sticky wicket

    David Carver

    Quick Reads

Back to top