Abstract
Following the U.K. Labour government commitment to marriage in the 1998 Green Paper ‘Supporting Families’, Barlow and Duncan produced a robust critique calling for ‘realism’ in recognising that many couples are now choosing not to marry, that too many do not make informed decisions as to whether to marry or not and that, on the basis of their survey, over 40% of respondents believed that some form of family law protection would be available to them, despite their lack of marital status. When added to a concern that economically vulnerable cohabiting women do not receive adequate protection in property law, it seemed all too obvious that the government commitment to marriage should be challenged. In fact, government policy does seem to have shifted somewhat when, partly as a tactical manoeuvre to help the passage of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and specifically recognising concerns with the needs of economically vulnerable parties, the issue was referred to the Law Commission for England and Wales. This places the ‘realism’ arguments firmly within the reform agenda. However, this article argues that there is a need to look more closely at the arguments used by the ‘realists’, in particular at the evocation of the figure of Mrs. Burns. The more contemporary case of Oxley v. Hiscock is used to both raise questions about the socio-economic profiles of cohabitants, as well to question the presentation of property law as failing women (and family law as offering the protection they need). I argue that feminists should take a cautious approach in relation to the seemingly compelling argument that cohabitants will benefit from the extension of aspects of marriage law to cover property issues at the end of a relationship.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Advicenow, Living Together Survey (2004), found on http://www.Advicenow.org.uk
Barlow A., Duncan S. (2000a) Family Law, Moral Rationalities and New Labour’s Communitarianism. Part I. Journal of Social Welfare Law 22(1):23–42
Barlow A., Duncan S. (2000b) Family Law, Moral Rationalities and New Labour’s Communitarianism. Part II. Journal of Social Welfare Law 22(2):129–143
Barlow A. (2003) Rights in the Family Home: Time for a Conceptual Revolution. In: Hudson A. (eds) New Perspectives on Property Law: Human Rights and The Home. Cavendish Press, London, pp 53–78
Barlow A., James G.(2004) Regulating Marriage and Cohabitation in 21st Century Britain. Modern Law Review 67(2):143–176
Barlow A., et al. (2005) Cohabitation, Marriage and the Law. Hart, Oxford
Bottomley A. (1994) Language, Gender and Property Relations: Songs of Innocence and Experience. In: Maclean M., Kurczewski J. (eds) Families, Politics and The Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 00–00
Bottomley A. (1998) Women and Trust(s): Portraying the Family in the Gallery of Law. In: Bright S., Dewar J. (eds) Land Law: Themes and Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 206–228
Bottomley A. (2001) Our Property in Trust: Things To Make and Do. In: Scott-Hunt S., Lim H. (eds) Feminist Perspectives on Equity and Trusts. Cavendish Press, London, pp. 257–287
Bottomley, A. & Wong, S., “Shared Households: A New Paradigm for Thinking the Reform of Domestic Property Relations” in Feminist Perspectives on Family Law, eds. A. Diduck & K. O’Donovan (London: Glasshouse, 2006) forthcoming.
Bright S., McFarlane B. (2005) Proprietary Estoppel and Property Rights. Cambridge Law Journal 64(2):449–480
Civitas, The Facts behind Cohabitation found on http://www.civitas.org.uk/hwu/cohabitation.php
Craig, A., “Out in the Cold: The Unloved Middle Class Family”, The Sunday Times, 26 February 2006
Donzelot J. (1997) The Policing of Families. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
Dewar J. (1998) Land, Law and the Family Home. In: Bright S., Dewar J. (eds) Land Law: Themes and Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 327–355
Dnes, A.W., “The Life-Profile Theory of Marriage, Cohabitation and Same-Sex Marriage”, Proceedings of Annual Meeting of American Association of Law and Economics, 2004, Paper 65.
Dnes A.W. & Rowthorn R. (eds.), Marriage and Divorce: An Economic Perspective (Cambridge: CUP, 2000).
Dnes A.W. & Rowthorn R. (eds.), The Law and Economics of Marriage and Divorce (Cambridge: CUP, 2002).
Gray K., Gray S. (2005) Elements of Land Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Haskey J. (2001) Cohabitation in Great Britain: Past, Present and Future Trends and Attitudes”, Population Trends 103. The Stationery Office, London
Home Office, Supporting Families (London: Home Office, 1998).
Law Society, Cohabitation: The Case for Clear Law (London: Law Society, 2002).
Lewis, J., Marriage, Cohabitation and the Law: Individualism and Obligation (1999) found on http://www.dca.gov.uk/research/1999
Miles J. (2003) Property Law v Family Law; Resolving the Problems of Family Property. Legal Studies 23(4):624–648
Office for National Statistics, Living in Britain 31. Results from the Household Survey (2004a).
Office for National Statistics, Social Trends 34 (2004b).
O’Hagan P. (1997) Quantifying Beneficial Interests Under Resulting Trusts. Modern Law Review 60:420–427
One Plus One Marriage and Partnership Research, Who Cohabits, When and Why?, found on http://www.oneplusone.org.uk
Population Trends (London: The Stationery Office, 2005).
Smith R. (2006) Property Law. Pearson, Harlow
Wong S. (1998) Constructive Trusts over the Family Home: Lessons to be Learned from Other Commonwealth Jurisdictions?. Legal Studies 18(3):369–390
Acknoweldgements
My thanks to Hilary Lim, Belinda Meteyard, Simone Wong and Sue Millns.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bottomley, A. From Mrs. Burns To Mrs. Oxley: Do Co-habiting Women (Still) Need Marriage Law?. Feminist Legal Stud 14, 181–211 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-006-9027-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-006-9027-9