The High Court refused Ms Z’s application to be declared a “qualified cohabitant” of the late Mr X, finding she had not established that he lived apart from his wife, Mrs Y, for at least four of the five years before his death.
The application, brought by summary summons on 18 January 2020, also sought related relief under the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered judgment on 14 October 2022. He said those further forms of relief were available only to a qualified cohabitant and refused all the reliefs sought.
Ms Z said she began a relationship with Mr X in 2011 and lived with him at a stated address from late 2012 until his death in autumn 2018. She said they presented themselves as a couple, travelled together and planned to move abroad. Mrs Y accepted that her husband had an intimate relationship with Ms Z, but denied that he had stopped living with her. She said their marriage continued until his death and that he remained at their marital home.
The central legal issue was a statutory restriction applying because Mr X was married when his relationship with Ms Z ended. As there were no dependent children, the court considered whether he and Mrs Y had lived apart for at least four years during the previous five years.
The judge accepted evidence that Mr X continued to return to the marital home, including after spending evenings with Ms Z. He also accepted evidence from Mr X’s son that his father often went drinking at local licensed premises. The judge found that Mr X and Mrs Y’s relationship had cooled, but that they continued to have an intimate relationship. He concluded they had not lived apart for the required period.
The judgment also said Mr X and Ms Z had not been shown to be “living together” as a couple in the sense required by the Act. It noted the length of their relationship and some financial dependence by Ms Z, but found that the evidence about their living arrangements did not establish the necessary cohabitation.
The court therefore was not satisfied that Ms Z qualified under section 172 and refused the declaration and related reliefs. The judgment does not grant those remedies.