A man who the High Court found had been in a long-term cohabiting relationship with a woman is to receive two rental properties from her estate, after the court weighed his housing and income needs against the interests of her three brothers.
In a judgment delivered on 5 May 2015, Ms Justice Baker found that the plaintiff had lived with the woman at K House from 2004 until her death in August 2014. She held that they had been in an intimate and committed relationship for about 20 years, and that he qualified to seek provision from her estate under section 194 of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010.
The woman’s personal representative, her brother, had disputed that they were cohabitants. Her brothers described them as close friends, while the plaintiff said their relationship was intimate and that they had shared a home for years. The judge accepted his evidence, including that they shared a bedroom, spent much of their daily lives together and presented themselves as a couple to friends and colleagues. The court heard conflicting accounts about how much the woman’s family knew of the relationship.
The court also considered evidence that the woman had discussed marriage with the plaintiff shortly before her death and had left an unsigned document setting out wishes for her estate. The judge said that document was not a will, and found that the woman had chosen to die intestate. It informed the court’s assessment but did not determine the award.
The judge ordered that two residential investment properties, at 1 The Crescent and 8 The Fairways, together with their contents, be vested in the plaintiff. She said the provision amounted to about 45% of the estate, while stressing that the legislation did not set a fixed percentage or rule of thumb. The family home at K House was not awarded to him, in part because of its emotional importance to the woman’s family. Her brothers were to receive the balance of the estate.
The order followed the court’s finding that the plaintiff had no home of his own, had no pension and had limited income from his farm. The judge said the award was intended to address his accommodation and income needs. The judgment concerned the cohabitation and provision proceedings; the estate had also brought separate proceedings against him, which were consolidated with the case and were to be heard after the cohabitation claim.