Supreme Court decision on unmarried couples and their pension entitlements on the death of their partner
Spot the difference:
A: Mr Bloggs sadly dies, having accrued a public sector pension through his years of work. Having agreed with his wife, Mrs Bloggs, to make regular payments into the policy for many years during the course of his employment, the pot is quite significant and upon his death Mrs Bloggs is able to receive the benefit of the accrued sum.
B: Mr Bloggs sadly dies, having accrued a public sector pension through his years of work. Having agreed with his long term cohabitant and fiancée, Miss Jones, to make regular payments into the policy for many years over the course of his employment, the pot is quite significant, but upon his death Miss Jones is denied any access to the accrued sum.
Until this morning’s decision in the Supreme Court, that was the unfairness that Ms Brewster sought to challenge after the death of her fiancée and cohabitant of 10 years, Mr McMullan. However, by unanimous decision of 5 Supreme Court judges, this injustice was corrected.
Mr McMullan died young and very suddenly only two days after the couple became engaged. Contrary to Ms Brewster’s understanding, he had not completed a nomination form to deal with his pension pot in the event of his death; something that would not have been required if the couple were married. Crowdfunded Ms Brewster successfully argued in the Supreme Court that such treatment of her by the pension provider breached her Article 14 rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 as it discriminated against her on the basis of her marital status.
The application of the decision in practice is likely to be much narrower than the impact of the headline and the signal the decision carries. A nomination form is not usually required by private pension schemes to pass the benefits to surviving cohabitants and therefore the decision only applies to a handful of private pensions or public sector pensions where no nomination form has been completed but where a couple have cohabited for more than two years and are financially interdependent. However, the message is a strong one and it should have ramifications.
With cohabiting relationships being the fastest growing family type in the UK, with the myth of common law marriage still widespread and in view of the inadequate and highly complex laws applicable to cohabitants on relationship breakdown (as highlighted by the Law Commission in its 2007 cohabitation report), this is an area of law that is long overdue for reform. It is an area the government has refused to address, but with the Supreme Court decision, not only is there some justice for the people who might be directly affected by the decision but it is to be hoped that it adds a strong voice to the chorus of those calling for this area of law to catch up with society.
Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on arrangements for children of international families
Property Patter: cohabitees and property rights - what do couples need to think about?
It is easy to drift into complicated territory when it comes to property arrangements between a couple
I'm getting married in the morning, ding dong the bells are going to chime...
Co-parenting arrangements - what are they and what are some of the key considerations?
Guidance where Domestic Abuse alleged
High Court finds former unmarried couple hold weekend home as beneficial joint tenants (despite just one funding the whole £1,550,000 purchase price)
The rise of cost sanctions in family law proceedings (even against successful parties!)
“Do I have to mediate?”
A trained impartial mediator can work with a divorcing couple if they cannot sort matters themselves.
Domestic Abuse Bill - strengthened protection for victims
The conveniences and inconveniences of forum non-conveniens
Common sense prevails in husband’s attempt to charge former wife rent to live in matrimonial home.
Sarah Jane Boon
Sarah Jane Boon quoted by the Evening Standard on the Court of Appeal's decision in the Derhali divorce
For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer
The end of the blame game - introduction of no fault divorce
Matt Foster writes for Family Law Journal on the enforcement of child arrangements orders
Matt Foster argues that the enforcement of child arrangements orders requires a pragmatic approach outside the legislative framework.
Lockdown 3.0 - Exceptions to the 'Stay at Home' message; a reminder of the coronavirus rules affecting families
Brexit dos and don'ts for family lawyers before 31 December
What do the new Christmas rules mean for children with separated parents?
Miranda Fisher quoted by Tatler on the rise in the use of prenuptial agreements
Untangling the UK/Swiss Knot: Wills for Swiss/UK couples
Before Heidi and Henry “settle down”, they decide to go on a free-ride skiing adventure. Do they need Wills?