1. INTRODUCTION

John Eekelaar has made a tremendous contribution to family law that spans both the law governing adult relationships and child law. As the chapters in this collection reveal, his scholarship meticulously dissects and rigorously analyses the effectiveness of the law when confronted with the needs of an ever-changing society. This chapter, however, departs from this pre-eminent focus on family law, and instead examines Eekelaar’s (perhaps lesser-known) contribution to the sphere of property law. Revealing Eekelaar’s versatility as a scholar, this chapter analyses his influence on the law relating to the acquisition and quantification of interests in the family home, which is an area that remains regulated by property law, however much lawyers and those advocating reform would wish otherwise.

The inspiration and impetus behind writing this chapter is an article entitled ‘A Woman’s Place – A Conflict between Law and Social Values’ that was published in 1987 in the Conveyancer and Property Lawyer. This article was pioneering, as it was one of the first to take aim at the intellectual dishonesty of the emerging trusts of the family home framework, and the faulty theoretical foundations upon which it was built. A key feature of the article is its keen engagement with the disconnect between the law and the socially conditioned, lived reality of homemaking, particularly in terms of how it was disproportionately experienced by women. This aspect is particularly striking as the article was published in the leading specialist property law journal, which is not necessarily known for canvassing such sociolegal arguments, and is one which routinely features scholarship in this area praising legal certainty, orthodoxy and doctrinal purity.

Comprised of three parts, this chapter analyses Eekelaar’s criticisms of the legal framework, and his proposed solution, and, finally, reflects on how far his arguments have influenced the modern law. Its purpose is to reveal the analytical rigour of his work in this field and his bold rejection of prevailing property law dogma, and to demonstrate this article’s impact nearly 35 years after it was published.