In order to answer this problem question, I will be applying the law relating to cohabitants to this scenario in order to seek rumination for my client Ella, who I believe has suffered a great unjust. Although both parties at the time were not married but cohabiting, there is no capacity or formality to form a valid marriage within the ‘definition of ‘voluntary union for life of one man and one women to the exclusion of others’. From the aforementioned analysis, it is apparent that the parties do not satisfy the requirements laid down in Hyde v Hyde and Woodhouse,1 which was a case that regarded an English Mormon who brought an action against his wife for adultery. It was this historical case which was also criticized for not being a binding precedent and its point of view rather defended marriages rather than defined it.
Therefore, it is alluded that the courts do not heavily rely on this case. The available evidence seems to validate that the parties wherein a cohabitating relationship as some indication of the law’s definition of cohabitation has been given by previously mentioned social security cases. Which have considered when a couple can be regarded as living together as if they were husband and wife. One such case was Kimber v Kimber2 which suggested the following components
