1. I have used the more usual terminology of ‘cohabitants’ rather than ‘cohabitees’. For criticism of the latter term see M Freeman and C Lyon, Cohabitation Without Marriage (London: Cower, 1983), p 5.

2. At p1.

3. It could also be argued that Mee's analysis constructs cohabiting women as the ‘problem’ for property law, since the developments over the last 30 years have in part been a response to the difficulty that women have faced in satisfying the requirements of property law.

4. See R Probert ‘Home-sharing - Widening the Debate’ [1999] Fam Law 153.

5. At p 320.

6. Ibid.

7. [1995] 1FLR70.

8. C Harpum, ‘Cohabitation Consultation’ [1995] Fam Law 657.

9. [1972] 1 WLR 1286.

10. At pp 21–22.

11. See p 24, especially fn 107.

12. (1994) 117 DLR (4th) 228, described at p 23.

13. Bums v Burns [1984] Ch 317.

14. At p 148.

15. At p 221.

16. At p 82.

17. At p 39.

18. See the views of Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340 and Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1994] 4 All ER 890. Note also Lowson v Coombes [1999] 2 WLR 720.

19. Midland Bank v Cooke [1995] 4 All ER 562.

20. At p 118.

21. Thus he argues that thejudges in Evesv Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1338 and Grant v Edwards [1986] 1 Ch 638 were not inventing agreements but merely giving effect to the common understanding that beneficial title would be shared: at pp 122–123. Cf S Gardner ‘Rethinking Family Property’ (1993) 109 LQR 263.

22. At p 154.

23. [1897] 1 Ch 196.

24. At p 313.

25. Examples include the New South Wales De Facto Relationships Act 1984, Victoria Property Law (Amendment) Act 1987, Northern Temtory De Facto Relationships Act 1991 and ACT Domestic Relationships Act 1994.