B
The legislative definition (at the link I provided) is very clear - it says "a man and woman who are not married to each other but are cohabiting as husband and wife.". That is not and cannot be interpreted as including a same-sex relationship.It does repeatedly mention man and woman in the text, it doesn't provide for a same sex relationship. On the other hand, there is nothing in the text to specifically exclude same-sex relationships. There must be a ruling somewhere though?
100% confident! It is liable to change consequent on DSFA's current exercise, but there's so much to be changed that it's dragging very slowly...Dremerb, I was under the impression that same-sex couples were treated as cohabitating for SW purposes (there is no legal term for cohabitation). But if you say otherwise....
Any examples out there of experiences of same-sex couples being treated as individuals under SW rules?...
[...] as you added that after I had written my post[...]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?