What MR v EF [2024] EWFC 144 tells us about modern relationships.
In the recent case of MR v EF [2024] EWFC 144, the Family Court considered an issue that frequently arises in financial remedy cases: when did the relationship truly begin and when did it end? But why does it matter?
The context
Because of being married, spouses have financial matrimonial claims against each other in respect of the capital, pension and income resources that they each have, whether held jointly or in sole names. The court generally views the starting point for the division of matrimonial capital and pension resources to be equality (the sharing principle), unless there is a sufficient reason to depart from this starting point (e.g. to meet the needs of a party).
In general, the longer the marriage, the more likely it will be that the court will consider it fair to divide capital and pension resources more equally. Case law has established that the court will normally include any period of cohabitation that moves seamlessly into marriage as counting towards the length of the marriage.
What happened in MR x EF
In this case, the husband argued that the parties had separated seven years earlier than the wife claimed, relying heavily on the fact that they were not always living under the same roof. The wife maintained that, despite periods of living apart due to caring responsibilities and practical circumstances, they remained in a committed marital relationship.
The court ultimately accepted that relationships are not always straightforward or conventional. It found that couples may still be regarded as living together as a family unit even where work commitments, caring obligations or other life circumstances mean they are not physically together all of the time.
The judgement is a useful reminder that the court looks at the reality of the relationship rather than simply asking whether the parties shared the same address every night.
How does this compare?
We recently acted in a case involving similar issues. Our client’s position was that the parties had begun cohabiting before marriage, although practical circumstances meant they were sometimes apart. The wife had work and family commitments which occasionally required her to stay elsewhere, including periods spent caring for relatives. However:
- She kept personal belongings at our client’s flat;
- She had her own key and unrestricted access;
- The parties were in a committed and exclusive relationship; and
- They conducted themselves as a couple throughout the relevant period.
The wife argued that cohabitation only began after the marriage itself.
What happened next?
As in MR v EF, the key question was not whether the parties were continuously under the same roof, but whether their lives had become sufficiently merged for the relationship to amount to cohabitation in reality.
Cases like these demonstrate that modern relationships often do not fit neatly into traditional patterns. Courts will examine the overall picture, including emotional commitment, financial interdependence, living arrangements, and the practical realities of the parties’ lives, rather than applying a rigid definition of cohabitation.
Giving you the full picture
If you feel that you or someone you know requires advice, please contact our family law team for clear, practical advice tailored to your specific circumstances.
