Ssh! It’s a secret! The importance of a good NDA

If you have a NDA, HighStreetLawyer.com will review it for you for free and let you know if it is suitable for your purposes. The information contained within this article does not constitute legal advice.

Anyone who has seen the film “The Social Network” about the creation of Facebook will appreciate the importance of guarding a good secret and ascertaining where the idea originated. Billions of pounds can be at stake by not properly protecting your business’ sacred information. Just look at the Apple versus Samsung litigation to see the effect.

But what if you have you got a business idea that you need to discuss with other people? You may need to take soundings on the viability of your idea or start talking to potential backers. However, as paranoia seeps in that those you want to collaborate with may steal your amazing idea, your desire to communicate with them diminishes.

What can you do to ensure that you achieve maximum advantage from partnering with others without losing your shirt?

There are various pros and cons to asking potential partners to sign a Non Disclosure or Confidentiality Agreement (NDA). Which form to use and whether to use one at all will depend on many factors.

If you are passing sensitive or confidential data to someone for review purposes or for them to assess whether a business relationship should be pursued a simple NDA is all that is required. The main element of the NDA is to put the receiving party on notice that the information that they will receive is regarded as commercially sensitive. The agreement will stipulate who the information can be shared with; such as accountants and lawyers, how it should be stored and what should happen if the relationship does not proceed. Where most data is shared electronically, consider how likely it will be that the receiving party can properly protect your sensitive data and destroy it when the relationship is not to be pursued.

If the other party is also going to be sharing their information with you, a mutual NDA will be best so that both parties are subject to the same obligations. This may not be as strong as a one sided NDA but shows the other party that you can also abide by promises of confidentiality.

Very few ideas are entirely new and elements of your idea may already be known to the recipient or in the public domain. The NDA should clarify whether it covers sensitive information about your idea that the recipient may have seen elsewhere. They will not want to be responsible for keeping secret something which is already widely known.

Experienced investors, angel networks and private equity houses receive hundreds of pitches, many of which have a similar theme and possibly similarities with ideas that they may be developing themselves especially if they are already in your sector. Their ability to protect your information and keep it separate, physically and theoretically, from other ideas that they have seen is often impaired. Many such investors will not agree to be bound by NDA’s for this reason. A confidentiality notice or an undertaking in correspondence may be the best you will get. Whether you want to share information with a party that does not want to sign your NDA will be a delicate balance of how useful they may be to moving your idea to the next level.

Of course, the more your idea is shared the harder it gets to keep it a secret.

You should always

Keep good records of everyone who has seen your sensitive data,
Who has signed a NDA and whether they made any changes to it before signing it,
Number all documents that you send out to keep track of the data flying around and
Ask that any documents are returned to you if the matter does not proceed.
A NDA is a contract between two parties and is enforceable provided it is proportionate to the type of information being shared. Imposing huge sanctions on a receiving party for breaching the agreement are unlikely to be upheld.

Drafting a NDA needn’t cost a fortune and a good template or precedent can be easily modified for different scenarios.

Ultimately, the purpose of the NDA is to notify the other party that you are serious, that you care about what you are sending them and that it has commercial value. Whether your idea is a success will have to rely on a whole host of other factors.

Fight for Your Right to Copyright

One of the questions that I field occasionally from aspiring writers is how to register copyright works.

The (very short) answer is: you can’t. There is no such thing as a “Copyright Registry” and, even if there were, it may create as many problems as it solves.

Copyright protection is very easy to obtain. Indeed, it is automatically obtained for any original literary work and applies as soon as it is written. There is nothing further you need do and no-one you need to inform in order to claim copyright: you just need to write down the words (as long as they are original).

Acquiring copyright protection is one thing, but enforcing it can be quite another, especially in cases where two or more parties claim that they were the original authors of the work. While there is no “official registry” where you can file your original work once you have completed it, there are some practical steps that you can take as an author to establish evidence of originality.

A service that can be provided to writers by solicitors is to time-stamp their work. This is easy to do. Simply give your solicitor a printed copy of the work and ask them to officially stamp and date each individual page. For extra security, give them two copies and ask them to time-stamp both, return one to you and keep another in your file.

This time-stamping method is useful because it provides third-party verification of the existence of the work in its format at a certain date. This can be very useful and compelling evidence in the event that someone else comes along claiming the work is their original work for they would need to adduce evidence that their work pre-dates yours.

Of course, time-stamping is not conclusive in itself, nor does it verify or prove that the work is an original work. It merely evidences that the work in a certain format was in existence at the date of the time-stamping.

As for the cost, well, that is something that you have to negotiate with your professional adviser. If your original work consists of a 800-page ‘magnum opus’, then the cost could mount up. Even so, this outlay has to be judged against the potential costs of not taking any steps to protect your original work. That could cost you a great deal more.

David Carr

Carr & Kaye Solicitors

HighStreetLawyer Hampstead

Immigration Update: The Right of Appeal for Family Visits to End

Between July and October 2011, the Home Office carried out a consultation on whether applicants who had been refused a family visit visa should have a full right of appeal. Now, a clause in the Crime and Courts Bill published on 10^th May 2012, will remove the full right of appeal for those applying to enter the UK as a family visitor. Subject to Parliamentary approval, this change is expected to come into force by 2014.  Refused applicants will still be able to appeal on the limited grounds of human rights or race discrimination.

Putting an end to the right of appeal for visitors could save the UK Border Agency (UKBA), between £8-12 million per year and the justice ministry up to £24 million in the cost of immigration judges and tribunals. However there is widespread disapproval of the Home Office’s plans, particularly from within British Asian communities, who form the majority of applications for visit visas.

Home Office statistics show that 420,000 visa applications were made for short-term visits by close relatives of British families in 2010, at a cost of more than £70 each. Out of the decisions made, 350,000 family visit visas were allowed and 88,000 were turned down. 36 per cent of the 63,000 appeals made against the refusal were successful.

In June 2012 the UKBA will also introduce secondary legislation which will tighten the family and sponsor definitions in family visit visa appeals. Subject to Parliamentary approval, these changes are expected to come into force in July 2012. Those applying to visit a cousin, uncle, aunt, niece or nephew will no longer have access to a full right of appeal, and to use that appeal right, the family member being visited in the UK must have settled, refugee or humanitarian protection status.

The impact of the legislation

The removal of appeal rights is a very controversial area and does not come without legal risk, although the blow of eliminating the appeal procedure is softened by the fact that there may be a right of appeal under Human Rights laws. The new laws will prevent many thousands of people visiting their families in the UK for weddings, funerals and other important occasions. It is understandable that many feel aggrieved at legislation removing the right to appeal. The government’s own statistics show that the initial decision-making on family visit visas is somewhat flawed, with 36 per cent of appeals against refusal being granted at the appeal stage.

The only way a UK sponsor can minimise the effects of this decision is to think very carefully about obtaining legal advice from an experienced immigration lawyer to ensure that they have the best possible chance of obtaining a visit visa for their relative.

   

By Manoj Athi

HighStreetLawyer Sheffield/West Bromwich

I Do, Do You?

David Cameron last week spoke out; “It’s a crime”, he said, and “it should be a crime.” “We need to change the culture and say loudly and clearly it is unacceptable.” He was talking about criminalisation of forced marriage, but this could easily be the view of a Wilson-era Briton objecting to the government’s open social liberalism. It has been half a decade since the legalisation of divorce, homosexuality and abortion, yet the rights of homosexual couples remains on the agenda.

The media has been ablaze with discussions over same sex marriage, with harsh words from the Church of England, and others declaring that the lack of a right to same sex marriage is a breach of human rights.

So does the lack of same sex marriage encroach on our rights? Article 12 of the European Convention of Human Rights, provides a right to ‘marry and establish a family’, so far only available to couples of the opposite gender. This was confirmed in Gas & Dubois v France (decision no: 25951/07, European Court of Human Rights, March 2012). The case concerned two women’s right to adopt, but the judgement, which guides UK law, stated that the lack of availability of same sex marriage did not contravene the couple’s human rights, as long as some other legal avenue, such as a civil partnership, provided them with the same ‘social, personal and legal’ rights as wedlock.

Since the introduction of the Civil Partnership Act in 2004, same sex couples have been able to formalise their union through a civil partnership, but the consultation process is underway to consider whether to go a step further and allow same sex marriages. Critics of the proposal will argue that there is no practical difference, and that the marriage-civil partnership distinction is minimal. But many homosexual couples feel slighted by the offering of a ‘second tier’ union, and the reality is that significant disparities exist.

At first glance civil partnerships share many of the same characteristics as marriage. Yet, upon examination, some differences emerge. When it comes to divorce, a couple must rely on a list of legally outlined ‘facts’ in order to file a petition. These include a spouse’s ‘unreasonable behaviour’, having lived apart for a certain period of time, and adultery. These are mirrored in the dissolution of civil partnerships, but the ‘adultery’ fact is not included. Whilst we can muse on the reasons for this, it is difficult not to see the omission as discriminatory. Was it because Parliament baulked at the idea of redefining adultery to include homosexual acts, or was it due to a belief that same sex couples do not place as high a value on a devoted relationship as married couples?

Another important question to consider is if, eight years ago, the newly created law of civil partnership was deemed appropriate, then why has the same sex marriage debate reappeared now? The Civil Partnership Act 2004 was extensive, with more than 200 sections; a result of a considerable amount of government time and money. It seems a waste of precious Parliamentary resources to revisit the Act so soon – why was same sex marriage not created in the first place?

Allowing homosexuals couples to validate their relationships in any manner was controversial. Some will argue that the civil partnership created an opportunity for homosexual couples to distinguish their unions from religion-heavy church marriages. However, sceptics explicate that all the effort in creating the Civil Partnership Act was just an initial stage, so that when the topic of same sex marriage was breached in the future, the reaction from the Church would be lessened. It is interesting that this second stage has come around so soon.

Despite contention the first time around, the Church of England remains staunchly against the progression from civil partnership, which it has stated will ‘permanently diminish’ the significance of marriage. Ironic, considering the institution was created to legalise divorce for a monarch famous for his respect of matrimony. If the Church is relying on scripture to back up its argument, then in the same vein, the biblical transgression of eating pork and prawns should also be illegal. Alternatively, using logic, should paedophiles and murderers be permitted to marry, whilst same sex couples cannot? Civil ceremonies account for 68 per cent of marriages in the UK, and it has long been possible to marry outside of the Church, in an entirely secular service, so it seems absurd that the Church of England is still attempting to assert authority over government decisions.

With an increasingly multicultural, secular and diverse society in the UK, and opinion polls evidencing that more and more people are in favour of same sex marriage, it will be interesting to see the results of the Government’s proposal. Will it be a step too far, too soon? Or has the time for equal rights arrived?

By Judy Benmayer of HighStreetLawyer.com

How Healthy Is Your Will?

One in five wills contains a serious error, says Legal Services Board.

All those offering will-writing and estate administration services should be regulated, the Legal Services Board has recommended. The LSB was set up to regulate lawyers in England and Wales. Its goal is to modernise the provision of legal services by putting consumers at the heart of the legal system, and it has released a proposal calling for regulation in the area of wills and estate administration. The LSB has recently switched its focus from looking at entry requirements to become a solicitor, to looking into the actual risks of lawyers’ activities and improving their regulation.

In 2011, the Legal Ombudsman called on the Government to act in protecting consumers against unregulated firms working in will writing. He stated that 13 per cent of all complaints brought to him involved problems in this area.

Many people would rather not think about what happens when they are no longer around. Often it is assumed that the estate will be split between next of kin, but legal rules which dictate what happens to someone’s property after death are complex, and the affairs of the deceased may not be as simple as first anticipated. Considering the importance of decisions made in a will, and the emotionally sensitive nature of administration of an estate, it is surprising that this area of law remains unregulated. Without sufficient checks, there is no way in which to prevent dishonest action when given full control to dealing with a deceased person’s estate. Without regulation, there is no guaranteed scheme for compensating those who are subject to fraud or costly mistakes due to poorly written wills.

The most staggering part of the research published by the LSB is that one in five wills drafted by a “professional” contained mistakes. The LSB also found systemic problems of sloppiness, simple errors and poor communication in solicitors and will-writing companies. Wills that would have failed to deliver what the testator wanted, or containing unclear clauses that would lead to difficulties administering the estate were widespread.  A small number of these wills were so poorly crafted that they were found not to be legally valid, meaning that the rules of intestacy would be applied as if no will had been written. Although correcting the mistakes by way of variations is possible it could be costly.

The LSB has proposed regulation in order to address problems such as the quality and safekeeping of wills, unethical sales practices and fraud, and the safekeeping of consumer’s money. It also plans to include a redress procedure to ensure that consumers are protected, regardless of who delivered the service, should things go wrong, making it impossible for unscrupulous providers to avoid regulation. Regulation will not stop mistakes from occurring; many of the errors were made by already regulated professionals; but they will provide a system of protection, comfort and redress for anyone who doesn’t want to draft their own will.

By Judy Benmayer of HighStreetLawyer.com

Clare's Law - A Change for the Better for Victims of Domestic Violence?

In October 2008, Clare Wood ended her relationship with George Appleton. Her rejection sparked a campaign of abuse, resulting in her horrific murder four months later. Appleton had a history of violence against women, including harassment, threats and kidnapping a former girlfriend at knifepoint.

Despite a number of complaints to the police, resulting in a panic button being fitted in her home, this was not enough to save Clare. Her murder made clear that the treatment of domestic crime requires improvement. This led to a government proposal, named ‘Clare’s Law’, enabling the police to disclose information to partners of those with histories of domestic violence.

The pilot scheme, announced on 5^th March 2012, will begin this summer. It follows a government consultation published in October 2011 which investigated whether a national disclosure scheme could improve the safety of people in relationships with previous offenders. The initial consultation raised important issues, such as how much information should be released and in which circumstances, and how malicious requests will be avoided. The government seeks to address these matters during the scheme’s trial.

The pilot is testing two processes for disclosing information about a partner’s violent history; the first is triggered by a query from a member of the public (‘The Right To Ask’); the second is where police disclose information in order to protect a potential victim (‘The Right To Know’). Taking into account the amount of government and police time, and taxpayers’ money spent on this issue, it is important to consider the implications of this scheme. 

Two people are killed by their partner each week in England and Wales; domestic violence is the cause of nearly 40 per cent of all female[1] UK homicides[2]. Evidently, government attention in this area is required, but is Clare’s Law the answer to reducing these figures? Refuge, one of the UK’s longest running domestic violence charities does not think so. The charity has criticised the proposed disclosure laws as ‘reactive rather than proactive’.

The theory behind the Government’s scheme is that if someone told that their partner has a history of domestic violence, they can then make an informed decision whether to continue with the relationship. This, however, raises many problems; if, like Clare Wood, a woman had no previous indication of her partner’s violent behaviour, then she would be unlikely to make an enquiry. Also, it is extremely doubtful that the scheme anticipates all those embarking on a new romance to carry out a police background check – it is simply unrealistic and doesn’t reflect reality.

Further, it is often on ending the relationship that people turn violent, as was the case with Wood and Appleton. Considering this, what is a woman to do when burdened with the information of her partner’s history? Many in such relationships stay with their partners out of fear for what would happen should they leave. Others might not leave because of love and belief that their partner can change. Would a woman be blamed for not leaving her partner when informed of his violent past?

The proposed ‘Right To Know’ process means police will inform potential victims of domestic violence. Statistics show that 44 per cent of victims are involved in more than one incident[3], so certainly many victims are already aware of what their partners are capable of, without being informed by the police. Knowing that their partners terrorised others before them would provide little solace.

Additionally, how would the police determine who they should inform? Appleton trawled social networking sites looking for his women. Are the police to follow these men from relationship to relationship, or message all their Facebook friends issuing warnings; for surely any one of them could be his potential victim. If a woman was able to escape an abusive relationship as a result of police disclosure, the perpetrator would simply be able to move onto his next victim. The problem is thereby displaced rather than prevented.

The police can only inform on the basis of information they have available: the details of those previously convicted. Considering that less than 40 per cent of domestic violence cases are reported to the police, a minor proportion of offenders will have police records, making it extremely unlikely for those making enquiries under ‘The Right To Know’ to obtain accurate information.

Having considered the implications of the proposed scheme, I think the most important thing is the way in which the police handle the disclosures. Potentially life-changing and life-threatening information is dangerous if unaccompanied by police support and intervention. Because the majority of cases go unreported, police time would be better spent conducting thorough investigations into allegations of abuse and monitoring those with troublesome histories. In a less than ideal world where prevention is impossible, protection should be key.

By Judy Benmayer of HighStreetLawyer.com

---

[1] Although it is recognised that men also suffer from domestic violence, it is primarily an issue affecting women, (a third of domestic violence victims are men according to the National Centre for Domestic Violence). It is currently unclear whether Clare’s Law would apply to male and female victims, as so this article has been written from a female-centric perspective.

[2]  (Povey, (ed.), 2005; Home Office, 1999; Department of Health, 2005.)  

[3] Dodd et al

Freedom of Choice? Freedom of Solicitors

As soon as Janice walks through the door she knows it’s the one. The spectacular view of the garden from the master bedroom, the sparkling marble kitchen worktops she has dreamt of, and the playroom which is perfect for the kids. All she needs to do is speak to her solicitor and he’ll sort everything out. The one in the office round the corner. The one who helped her buy her first flat, wrote her will, and sorted out her cousin’s divorce. But wait, she needs a mortgage from HSBC, and her local solicitor isn’t on their list.

What list? Well, HSBC have recently revealed their plans to reduce the number of solicitors on their residential mortgage conveyancing panel. Usually, when moving house, a conveyancing solicitor will manage both the mortgage documents and those concerning the transfer of the property. HSBC’s decision means that the mortgage part of the transaction can now only be handled by one of the 43 members of their conveyancing panel. Many high street solicitors are up in arms about the decision, lobbying the Law Society to protect them from this action which they believe may put them out of business.

The Chief Executive of the Law Society, Des Hudson has encouraged solicitors to write to their MPs to complain about the HSBC’s ‘heavy handed and arrogant decision’, but HighStreetLawyer believes this is missing the point. Whilst such restrictions may adversely affect the legal industry, the biggest loser in the equation is the consumer. 

Buyers wishing to take out a mortgage with HSBC must use a solicitor from their panel for the mortgage conveyance, but are given the option to use their own solicitor for the conveyance of the property. Using a panel solicitor for the entire transaction will be highly incentivised by the bank, and many may be unaware that using another solicitor is even a possibility. Furthermore, customers choosing their own conveyancing lawyer will have to pay twice for this time-consuming ‘choice’, since the work is ordinarily done by one lawyer, and many checks will have to be repeated. Taking into account the cost of buying a house in the current market, and the proportion of people struggling to get onto the property ladder, this option is unlikely to appeal.

Limiting the approved conveyancers to 43 flies in the face of everything the Legal Services Act sought to achieve; competition; access to justice and better service for consumers. HSBC’s decision means that property transfers will be done by a select few legal companies, impeding consumer choice. A home is the most important and costly purchase most people will ever make, so they want to use a solicitor they know and trust. For conveyancing, locality and reliability is key. A little research into Countrywide, the administrators of HSBC’s panel gives the impression of a faceless property machine; impersonal and remote.

As if restricting borrowers to a narrow list of solicitors wasn’t enough, other worrying issues arise. HSBC have chosen Countrywide as the agents of their conveyancing panel; responsible for choosing the remaining firms and distributing work. Unsurprisingly, Countrywide’s own licenced conveyancing firm has made it onto the panel, creating an obvious conflict of interest which has been strongly criticised by the Law Society. Although Countrywide has not disclosed its selection criteria for the panel, it seems that small, local firms will not be chosen. With such a limited number of solicitors, it is anticipated that only larger firms able to churn out conveyances in bulk will be included. Is this what a buyer wants?

The Legal Services Act intended to champion consumer rights and access to legal advice. Banks requiring conveyancing solicitors to be accredited in some way is an understandable precaution, but anything more than that creates a bias which restricts consumer choice. Buying a house is an important and life-changing decision, and the consumer should be put first. What we should be asking is not ‘How will this affect solicitors?’ but ‘How will this affect Janice and other consumers?’ 

By Judy Benmayer of HighStreetLawyer.com

The Pied Piper and Other Social Media Tales

Pied Piper (Noun): A charismatic person who attracts followers. (Merriam Webster English Dictionary)

There was a time when the only communication with the outside world during a working day was the morning post delivery or occasional telephone call. Times have changed. Mobile phones make employees accessible 24 hours a day, and the constant barrage of e-mails, tweets, text, Facebook and Twitter messages means a moment’s silence is rare.

For spheres of employment where social media is encouraged, legal problems are bound to arise. ‘Followers’, ‘friends’ and ‘contacts’ have become precious commodities in the business world, but to whom do they belong?

The Pied Piper of Hamelin and his Twitter followers 

There has been a dramatic increase in the number of social media disputes appearing in courts worldwide. In California, ‘@PhoneDogNoah’ is being sued for refusing to relinquish his Twitter contacts when he left PhoneDog to work for its competitor. Such cases are virgin territory for UK courts, so it will be interesting to see how they approach the challenge. They came close in June 2011, when Laura Kuenssberg, one of the most high-profile UK journalists on Twitter and the BBC’s chief political correspondent, left to accept a role at ITV. Formerly ‘@BBCLauraK’, it was anticipated that the BBC would claim rights to her account or her priceless 72,000-strong following. They did no such thing. Kuenssberg changed her account name to ‘@ITVLauraK’ and continued tweeting as normal.

Essentially, there was nothing the BBC could do. Taking over her account would have been futile, since those following her were doing so specifically to receive her daily thoughts and not those of the BBC. And forcing her to close down the account would be equally pointless – merely inconveniencing her fans; making them delete the old account and ‘follow’ the new one.

Although the BBC decided against legal action in this case, other employers may not be as lenient. Companies seeking to protect their brand should be wary of its use in social media, especially if it is incorporated into employees’ display names. Whilst it might benefit the account holder by attracting followers, increasing recognition and escalating their status by association, the employer’s gain may be negligible. Furthermore, without an employer-veto, employees posting freely may damage the brand by giving the impression that their tweets represent the ‘official’ views of the company.

When you can't click 'remove post'...

What happens then if the account is registered to the employee’s own e-mail address, or used to post personal updates? This distinction will certainly create an abundance of legal problems. Companies will seek to establish ownership rights over accounts which generate interest, and distance themselves from those which are detrimental to their reputation. Due to the intense value of social media, establishing the account’s ownership is crucial. Are social media accounts equivalent to a work e-mail account, where access ceases on termination of employment, or, are they more like a personal address book, to be added to at the owner’s discretion?

The only guidance to date is the High Court case of Hays v Ions in 2008. Ions, a recruitment consultant working for Hays created his own LinkedIn account, using it to approach work contacts three weeks before resigning and setting up his own rival business. The court deemed the information Ions had taken to be confidential and ordered him to relinquish all contacts taken from his e-mail address book at Hays. Notably, Hays were not granted access to Ions’ entire database as requested. This result is extremely telling: the court is seemingly ready to intervene when misuse of online social accounts occurs, but recognises the intensely private nature of the information stored within.

Whilst content uploaded from an account would probably be governed by intellectual property law, how the courts deal with ownership of the accounts and their contacts is yet to be established. My view is if an employer wants to ensure control over work-related social media, they should register the accounts to a business e-mail address, and make sure they maintain primary control. A good social media reputation is an asset to be treasured, so just like an employee wouldn't be allowed to leave with the company laptop containing sensitive data, they shouldn’t be allowed to take its followers either.

By Judy Benmayer of HighStreetLawyer.com

When Two Become One

January is notoriously the busiest month for family solicitors, and this year is no different. Katy Perry and Russell Brand have joined the hordes of couples who have decided, in a post-Christmas epiphany, that the time has come to split. Despite their short-lived relationship, the couple underwent a marriage ceremony. But how different would their situation be had they decided against it?

According to Brand, the couple chose not to create a prenuptial agreement, which seems to have been a romantic (and wise) move. The law in California (where it is believed that the couple’s marriage was registered), gives Russell a right to half of the $45m which his wife has earned during their 14 month marriage. Had they just cohabited, this certainly would not be the case- perhaps a more sensible move for Perry. Whether Brand will take full advantage of Perry’s marital earnings remains to be seen.

British lawyers are yet to reach a consensus on how separating couples should be treated; married and unmarried. There are some who believe that cohabiting couples should have equal rights to married couples, and those who are diametrically opposed to this idea. Others view marriage as morally or religiously sacred, avoiding break-ups at all costs.

Some of the most highly influential family lawyers in the country have cited their support of Mr Justice Coleridge, a judge in the Family Division of the High Court, and his plans to set up a ‘Marriage Foundation’ to encourage and support marriage. Somewhat controversially, he has put forward the view that couples who are in stable relationships should marry in order to cement their relationship further, and those considering divorce should ‘mend it’ rather than ending it. This is an interesting stance for a man who grants divorces for a living, and with a third of UK marriages ending in divorce, cannot represent the views of the average Briton.

However, with 15% of families (7.4 million people) in the UK cohabiting, it is clear that marriage is not the most desirable option for all. Many cohabiting couples are averse to idea of formalising their relationship through a piece of paper. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are those who decide against marriage because they want their relationship to remain free from the legal and social shackles it brings.

Many unmarried couples in long-term relationships have an unfounded belief that they will be treated in law as if they were married. But however the individual couple sees their relationship, there is no doubt that UK law views unmarried cohabiting couples disparately. With divorcing couples, the court’s standpoint is to pool the ‘marital assets’ and divide them as it considers fair. When it comes to unmarried couples, the court starts from the presumption that because they never married, the parties intend to leave the relationship with whatever assets they brought to it. This might be fair when it comes to splitting the CD collection, but not necessarily when it comes to deciding who gets the house, as each of them may have contributed to it since.

In order to protect themselves when moving in together, unmarried couples can create a cohabitation agreement. Similar to a prenuptial agreement for married couples, this is a contractual document setting out what will happen to the couple’s assets should they split up. However, just like prenups, UK courts do not view cohabitation agreements as legally binding or as a concrete representation of the parties’ wishes, but will take them into consideration, enforcing them if the resultant outcome is fair.

Cohabitation agreements are horribly unromantic, and are not always practical, since many couples float into living together in the fog of love. But writing a contract creates a safety net for those couples who want to protect their assets, avoid costly and lengthy legal proceedings and minimise heartache when breaking up. The Spice Girls sang ‘Be a little bit wiser baby… ’Cause tonight is the night when two become one.’ Whether or not we should be taking legal advice from the Spice Girls, I’m not quite sure, but the lyrics do speak some truth. Before you consider moving in together, it is wise to consider a cohabitation agreement, establishing your ownership rights so that you walk into your relationship protected, with your eyes open.