Even with the (intended) good meaning, I cannot understand the judgement. The reason people would live together without marrying etc. is to avoid the hassle(s) of marriage/divorce etc. It has the consent of both parties, if they both know this won't be treated as a marriage, then why does the court want to impose this on them.
Imagine if a girl and a boy are room mates, not in a live in relationship. One day the Girl decides to sue the boy claiming marriage benefits etc. saying they were in a live in relationship. Good luck disproving that.