• Sectors we work in banner(2)

    Quick Reads

"Has anyone seen my cat?" - Pet-Nups and Pet Disputes between Unmarried Couples

From Monday, all cats in England have to be microchipped and registered on a database. The new legislation applies to all cats aged 20 weeks and older, including indoor cats. Owners who fail to adhere to this regulation will be subject to a financial penalty, with a fine of £500 levied against those who do not comply within a 21-day period. 

This legislative development (which has existed for dogs since 6 April 2016) has got us thinking about pet disputes and how they might be resolved as part of a succession dispute or between unmarried couples.  We have been asking questions such as: is the name on the microchip definitive proof as to who owns the cat or dog?  Or will factors such as who looks after the pet, who pays for the pet, who runs their social media or (perhaps most importantly) who the pet loves more, be relevant?  As the number of ‘fur babies’ grows (and as some of those fur babies can be lucrative ‘pet influencers’), these issues seem increasingly relevant because – if the relationship breaks down – who gets to keep the cat?  

In English law, domestic pets are considered “chattels”.  This means that they are capable of being owned solely or jointly with another person. In the context of unmarried couples, it also means that rules relating to their ownership and possession are governed by the law of property and, as such, the question of who keeps the cat will depend on who owns the cat.    

Establishing ownership is therefore the central issue in any pet dispute between unmarried couples.  There is currently no legislation or case law for proving ownership of a cat.  Whilst the new microchip regime records the name and address of the person with whom the cat normally resides, it does not record legal ownership (nor does it currently confer any legal presumption in favour of the registered keeper).  Indeed, we note that the legislation is careful not to refer to the registered person as the owner of the cat, but instead terms them “keeper”.  

Without clear guidance as to the criteria for establishing ownership of a pet, we believe that the court would take account of any number of factors. These might include: 

  • who paid for the pet?
  • who registered (or chipped) the pet?
  • who pays the pet insurance and vets' bills? 
  • who primarily cares for the pet?
  • who invests more time into their pet (walking and playing with them, running their social media, curating pet photos)
  • who is the pet currently living with? 
  • was the pet a gift?

Given this uncertainty, it is perhaps unsurprising that unmarried couples are looking at alternative ways to ensure they keep the cat.  One option that is gaining noticeable traction is collaborative agreements. Like “pet-nups” for married couples (or pre-nups for pets), these agreements set out the parties’ consensus as to what should happen to the pets in the event of separation. Some even go beyond who keeps the cat to include how other responsibilities, such as vet bills and daily care might be managed post-separation, and even visitation rights. These types of arrangement strike us as a sensible way for parties to avoid further heartache at what can already be a very difficult time. After all, you cannot become a cat lady unless you keep the cat.  

Your dog must be microchipped and registered by the time they’re 8 weeks old. Your cat must be microchipped and registered by the time they’re 20 weeks old. This includes cats that usually only stay indoors.

Our thinking

  • IBA Annual Conference 2024

    Charlotte Ford


  • Record number of leading individuals for Charles Russell Speechlys in Chambers High-Net-Worth 2024

    Piers Master


  • Collateral Warranty and Third Party Rights: Everything You Need to Know

    Chris Marks


  • Supreme Court overturns Court of Appeal decision: Statutory adjudication will not apply to a typical collateral warranty

    Kevin Forsyth


  • IET’s new revision 7 of the Model Form of Contract (MF/1): What has changed?

    Melanie Tomlin


  • From Manchester to the Metaverse: How United’s Roblox Rollout Could Help Drive Fan Engagement

    Shennind Awat-Ranai


  • Game On for Hong Kong’s Sports Arbitration

    Patrick Chan


  • FCA announce new UK Listing Rules coming into force on 29 July 2024

    Jodie Dennis

    Quick Reads

  • Hubbis interviews Jeffrey Lee on the growth of our Singapore office

    Jeffrey Lee

    In the Press

  • New UK Listing Rules to be implemented 29 July 2024

    Victoria Younghusband


  • Darren Bailey and Frédéric Jeannin write for City AM on geopolitical risk and challenges posed to Paris by staging the Olympic Games

    Darren Bailey

    In the Press

  • Inside Housing quotes James Walton on the potential financing impact of delays at the Building Safety Regulator

    James Walton

    In the Press

  • IFLR quotes Victoria Younghusband on new UK listing rules unveiled by the FCA

    Victoria Younghusband

    In the Press

  • Bloomberg quotes Sarah Jane Boon on plans announced in the King’s speech to press ahead with the tax hike on UK private school fees

    Sarah Jane Boon

    In the Press

  • CoStar quotes Claire Fallows and Ben Butterworth on some of the key real estate issues addressed in the King's Speech

    Claire Fallows

    In the Press

  • Company Representation in Swiss Conciliation Hearings: Who Holds the Reins?

    Remo Wagner


  • “We want prenup! We want prenup!” (Yeah!)

    Cara Fung

    Quick Reads

  • Insolvency Insights: Maximising Recovery – DIFC Courts actions in aid of foreign liquidations

    Nicola Jackson


  • Charles Russell Speechlys reports domestic and international growth across all practice areas

    Simon Ridpath


  • Cyber Co-ordination 2024 - new MOU on co-operation between EBA, ESMA, EIOPA and ENISA

    Mark Bailey


Back to top