Can someone explain the relevance of cohabitation with new partner during divorce.

[Fishingboatbobbingnight]

My sister is in the middle of a protracted divorce. Her husband had an affair and moved abroad with OW. I know that divorce is ‘no fault’ these days so the affair is largely irrelevant. However he denies any cohabitation, on his disclosure documents and has done throughout the whole process (2 years plus) . Sister has a huge amount of evidence that they live together. They have also made multiple trips back to the UK and stayed with his family as a couple throughout the period.

They are just about to start the mediation process and discuss ‘needs’ . From my point of view (I’m not a lawyer) I think that the cohabitation is important and that’s why he is denying it. OW is independently wealthy and they live in a lovely home. My sister is in the FMH which needs to be sold to give ex a share . Sister is mid 60s on minimum wage and due state pension next year. FMH could raise sufficient for both parties to buy new homes. However there are no savings. Ex H is high earner.

Am I right in thinking the cohabitation is relevant. ? Should sister pursue this point . ? Or just accept 50/50 when he is in a much more advantageous position ?

I’m not a lawyer but I think it is relevant. My friend received less in the divorce settlement as she was already living with her new partner by the time it went through and his earnings were taken into account. She would have done better to stay living separately untol the divorce was finalised (which he did then immediately moved in with his super wealthy lawyer new girlfriend).

Definitely relevant. We have no plans to yet anyway, but DP was advised by his solicitor not to move in with me until his divorce is finalised as it could indicate he doesn’t need as much.

If she has good evidence then it is worth pursuing but them flying back and forth together and staying with family as a couple is not evidence sadly

What about SM posts travelling all over the world together ? Photos over a 36 month period. Chats from friends asking if they have moved to new country permanently and replies from OW saying yes and how happy they are.. all posted on a public forum ?

Yes it's definately relevant. She should gather all the information she can as evidence of co-habitation.

I was told by my solicitor that it was relevant, although this was several years ago now.

None of that mentions them living together though. They're clearly a couple but she'd want to look for evidence of a shared home.

Of course it’s relevant if he doesn’t have housing needs. And if he’s a high earner and she’s nearing retirement it would never be 50/50 anyway. Does she have a decent solicitor

As this seems to be relevant. What is the best type of evidence ? As far as a PI ? (expensive but perhaps an investment in the long term ?)

It is very relevant as his housing etc needs will be assessed and if they can be met by OW then your sister will get a bigger share of the split.

The property the ex husband is living in with the ow is part of the divorce settlement legally which is why he’s denying cohabitImg with her!!

Not really relevant IMHO. The fact of being in a relationship isn't relevant. It's cohabitation.
I've been with my DP about 7 years and have photos etc but we maintain 2 separate households and don't live together.
Your sister needs to forget about SM photos and try to see if she can access any public records in the country eg voter registers or similar. She needs something more concrete

Is this a name change fail by the OP?

Unless he owns or co-owns the property, OP does not have any claim on the property he is living in with the OW. However, as others have said, the courts may take the view that his needs are lower because he is co-habiting and OP is therefore entitled to a larger share of the assets.

My ex wife managed to wreck her settlement by signing that amongst other things she had no intention to marry or cohabit and then did so three days later.

There was then an assumed contribution from her new partner towards housing costs.

We went back to court and her settlement was reduced and she had to pay the mortgage on the FMH until it was sold.

Bear in mind that this was less than a year after we split.

The best thing from my point of view though was that it wasnt looked on very favourably by her family and friends - they told me so.

This was a woman with a First as she often liked to remind me.