The High Court refused an applicant’s claims for financial and property relief under the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010, finding that she did not qualify as a “qualified cohabitant”. The court held that breaks in the relationship meant the parties had not lived together in an intimate and committed relationship for the five years immediately before it ended in April 2016.
The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Binchy on 15 February 2019. The applicant had initially claimed relief under several family law statutes, but at the hearing her claims were confined to the 2010 Act. She sought a declaration that she was a qualified cohabitant and orders including property adjustment, maintenance and provision from the respondent’s estate.
The parties’ relationship began around late 2006 or early 2007 and finally ended in April 2016. They disagreed about whether earlier periods apart were temporary absences or breakdowns in the relationship. The applicant said she sometimes stayed with friends or family after arguments but continued to regard herself as in a committed relationship. The respondent said there were periods when the relationship was over and the applicant left his home.
The court found that the parties’ relationship broke down from around mid-November 2012 until early March 2013. It found there was no evidence that the applicant lived at the respondent’s home during most of that period, apart from a brief return in December, and that the parties had no intention of resuming the relationship at the time. The parties resumed living together in early March, but the applicant left again on 9 May 2013. The court found they were apart until 27 June and that the relationship had again broken down during that time.
Because both breaks fell within the five years before the relationship ended, the court said their duration could not count towards the statutory period. It therefore concluded the applicant had not met the five-year requirement. The court also found a further significant break between February and April 2015, based on the respondent’s evidence and that of witnesses. It made no finding on the respondent’s claim of a break in January to April 2014, saying the evidence was not corroborated and he had difficulty recalling dates.
The court said the parties had been in an intimate and committed relationship for much of their ten- or eleven-year relationship. But to qualify under the Act, they had to meet the five-year continuous period immediately before the relationship ended. Periods apart could be consistent with cohabitation where caused by matters such as work or illness; the court found the breaks here arose from breakdowns in the relationship. It refused the relief sought.