Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

From Mrs. Burns to Mrs. Oxley: Do Co-habiting Women (Still) Need Marriage Law?

By Anne Bottomley


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 msrry 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 this is added to a concern that economically vunerable cohabiting women do not recieve adequate protection in property law, it seems all too obvious that the governmental 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 vunerable 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

Topics: K
Publisher: Springer
Year: 2006
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (1999). Cohabitation and the Law: Individualism and Obligation
  2. (2001). Cohabitation in Great Britain: Past, Present and Future Trends and Attitudes”, Population Trends 103 (London: The Stationery Office,
  3. (2002). Cohabitation: The Case for Clear Law (London:
  4. (1998). Constructive Trusts over the Family Home: Lessons to be Learned from doi
  5. (1998). Law and the Family Home”
  6. (2004). Living together Survey
  7. Moral Rationalities and New Labour’s Communitarianism. Part I”, doi
  8. Moral Rationalities and New Labour’s Communitarianism. Part II”, doi
  9. (2006). O’Donovan (London: Glasshouse, doi
  10. Office for National Statistics, doi
  11. Office for National Statistics, Living
  12. (2001). Our Property in Trust: Things To Make and Do” in Feminist Perspectives on Equity and Trusts,
  13. (2006). Out in the old: the unloved middle class family”, The Sunday Times,
  14. (2005). Population Trends (London: The Stationery Office,
  15. (2006). Property Law doi
  16. (2003). Property Law v Family Law; Resolving the Problems of Family Property”, doi
  17. (2005). Proprietary Estoppel and Property Rights”, doi
  18. (1997). Quantifying Beneficial Interests Under Resulting Trusts”, doi
  19. (2005). Repository – Kent Law School Published version available in
  20. (2003). Rights in the Family Home: Time for a Conceptual Revolution?’
  21. (1998). Supporting Families (London: Home Office, doi
  22. (2004). The Life-Profile Theory of Marriage, Cohabitation and Same-Sex Marriage”,
  23. (1997). The Policing of Families (Baltimore: doi
  24. (1998). Women and Trust(s): Portraying the Family in the Gallery of Law”
  25. (1994). xx-xx [page refs needed].

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.