So what are peoples feelings about the proposed rules to ultimately protect live in partners from leaving the relationship with nothing even if they havent contributed financially and have been in your home for only a short time?

Quote from a piece by our local solicitor in weekly rag

" It was previously accepted by the court that spouses could in general expect a less generous financial settlement if the marriage was a short one especially if there were no children. The recent House of Lords judgement however makes it clear this is not to be the case.It is no longer possible for a wealthy person to feel moderately safe from the prospect of handing over a significant proportion of his/her assets if the marriage has come to an end after only a short period , children or not."

As the Government also proposes that rights of so called 'living together' couples are to be made equal to those of married couples ,the problem is going to apply across the board.

Also, considering we already have a big scam of foreigners desperate to marry just anyone to get British citizenship -- what potential for serial 'mover inners' who make a living shacking up for a minimal time, claiming a load of dosh, and then moving on.
What a nightmare for the new relationships where one partner has a house, and is wondering whether they dare take a chance of testing a promising relationship by allowing a non home owning person to live with them . How short is a short time in law? Will you have to dump them if the months pass by and youre still not sure if they are 'the one' Extreme scenario I know, but our laws are just stupid enough to allow such a thing

It depends on the length of time involved, and whether the length of time spent together, aswell as assets prior to the live in relationship are taken into account in the legislation.

Ary.