Reaching the limits of semblance logic: Beyond economic vulnerability

What we are suggesting is that two concerns — equality and concern for economic­ally vulnerable parties — have always been in play in the reform debates. It may seem that economic vulnerability is a very sound ground on which to argue for law reform, and that it is important, in particular for feminists, to keep open the figure of the economically vulnerable female. However, this focus limits us to looking at patterns of dependency, rather than looking beyond this to a more interactive pattern of shared commitment. It may well be that we already have the possibility of thinking of shared commitment as the key concern for intervention, as in the Australian material. All we are signalling here is that a shift to this focus is important, so that we will not continually be drawn back into looking for patterns of actual economic vulnerability as the factor for intervention. Thus, to support the trend in our own jurisdiction, in both family and trusts cases, in which the element of ‘joint enterprise’ is increasingly being recognised, is crucial, even if in the actual orders given, a pattern of recognising economic vulnerability con­tinues, necessarily, to emerge. What we need to highlight is that we should not be tied to actual economic vulnerability but look rather to shared commitment as being the baseline. Hence our shared household model is not only a chance to think beyond bilateral relations but also a chance to think constructively about what it means to ‘share’.