Cohabitation reform

The law on cohabitation has struggled to keep pace with changing family structures. With more couples choosing to live together without marrying, the government's proposed reforms could bring the biggest change to cohabitants' rights in a generation.

Despite persistent public misconception, unmarried couples who live together do not acquire the same property rights as married couples or civil partners. That remains true no matter how long they have lived together, whether they own a home together, or whether one partner has made sacrifices during the relationship. On separation, the claims available to them are far more limited.

Calls for reform are not new. The Law Commission considered the law as it relates to cohabiting couples in reports published in 2007, 2011, 2014 and 2024, and the Women and Equalities Committee reported on the issue in 2022. More recently, the Labour Party’s 2024 manifesto included a commitment to “strengthen the rights and protections available to women and cohabiting couples”.

In June this year, the government launched a consultation on reforming financial remedies which closed on 14 August 2026. Although cohabitation reform is a significant part of that consultation, it also raises wider family law proposals, including codifying existing case law principles in financial remedies on divorce and introducing qualifying nuptial agreements, subject to safeguards.

This article looks at the current legal position for cohabitants, the key proposals in the government’s consultation, how those proposals compare with approaches in other jurisdictions, and practical questions to consider as the situation develops.

The current legal position

Over 3.5 million couples live together in England and Wales without being married. Despite cohabitation being the fastest growing family type, under the current law, cohabiting couples have limited rights both in life and on death.

On relationship breakdown, cohabitants must pursue their claims under either trusts law (TLATA 1996) or, where there are children, via the Children Act 1989. The current legal position has been described as a patchwork quilt.

The legal position does not change because a couple has lived together for a long time. That is particularly important given the continued prevalence of the “common law marriage” myth: around 47% of people in England and Wales believe that common law marriage rights exist.

When married couples separate, the family courts have broad discretion to divide assets in accordance with established principles, focusing on fairness, the parties’ needs and the needs of any children of the relationship. This can include all available assets, regardless of whose name they are held in and, importantly, pensions.

Unlike spouses, cohabitants have no automatic right to financial provision on separation. Claims are generally limited to real property, such as the family home, and the court does not have a general power to redistribute assets. Where cohabiting couples have children, further remedies may be available under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989, although these remain more limited than remedies on divorce, with housing provision usually made on a reversionary basis. Crucially, the current law does not allow cohabitants to obtain pension sharing orders.

On death, cohabitants do not have any automatic right to inherit under the intestacy rules, and they do not benefit from the same tax treatment as married couples.

The current legal position has been a cause for concern for some time. Those concerns are particularly acute where there is a power imbalance, including in abusive relationships, because one party may control the assets and the other may have limited practical routes to financial protection.

The legal position in relation to religious-only marriages is also complex. Some couples marry through a religious-only ceremony but do not legally formalise the marriage. In law, they may therefore fall into the category of cohabitants, even though they understand and recognise their relationship as a marriage.

What might reform look like?

Under the proposals, a new statutory framework for eligible cohabitants would apply automatically. Cohabitants would be able to “opt out” if desired. Eligibility would be limited to adults in committed, long-term relationships who have lived together for at least three years, or who live together and share a child (with no minimum relationship duration). That would include children the parties have together and children of the family, including children from previous relationships.

The starting point would be that each person keeps what they legally own. The court would only depart from that position to meet defined “needs”, assessed more narrowly than on divorce and excluding discretionary needs, which the consultation describes as “comforts” or “luxury items”, for example including a high-value car, non-essential home improvements and private club memberships. The sharing principle would therefore not apply to cohabitants. The welfare of any children would be the court’s first consideration, and a clean break should be achieved wherever possible.

In terms of the remedies available, the government proposes that qualifying cohabitants should have access to a broad set of remedies reflecting those available on divorce and, crucially, including pension sharing orders.

Cohabitants would be able to claim maintenance, but the consultation notes that this should only be available in exceptional circumstances, such as serious health issues or disability. Any such award must be for a defined and limited duration, and open-ended "joint lives" orders would not be permitted.

An explicit cap is proposed: awards to cohabitants cannot exceed what would have been reasonably ordered on divorce in otherwise identical circumstances.

Finally, the consultation proposes a two-year time limit for bringing a claim following the end of a relationship, which would arguably bring greater certainty. Under TLATA 1996, there is no specific time limit for bringing a property claim, although delay after separation may affect the prospects of success.

Position on death

On death, it is proposed that intestacy rights should be extended to qualifying cohabitants, so that they may inherit automatically in line with spouses, subject to meeting the relevant definition and minimum relationship duration. For families without children, five years is suggested as the minimum period of cohabitation before a surviving cohabitant would fall within the intestacy rules. Responses are sought on the position where cohabitants share children, including whether a two-year period would be appropriate in that context.

It is also suggested that the two-year minimum duration for cohabitants to make claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 should be removed for cohabitants who share a child with the deceased, so that surviving partners from short cohabiting relationships who would otherwise be excluded from provision under the intestacy rules are able to claim against the deceased’s estate.

Opting out and safeguards

Cohabitants would have the ability to opt out of the revised framework. The consultation notes that safeguards would be needed for any opt-out decision to be valid, particularly to protect cohabitants in abusive relationships or those subject to coercion.

Possible safeguards include requiring the opt-out agreement to be a valid contract entered into without undue influence or misrepresentation, that it should be executed as a deed, supported by financial disclosure at the time of the agreement, and made after both parties have received independent legal advice. The parties would not be able to prevent applications for child maintenance or claims under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 by way of an opt-out agreement.

How do other countries treat cohabiting couples?

It is worth drawing some comparisons with our closest neighbours. Family law issues are devolved, and the consultation paper applies only to England and Wales.

Scotland  

• "Opt out” scheme

• No minimum relationship duration, but the parties must live together “as husband and wife"

• Claims must be brought within one year of separation

• The claimant must be able to demonstrate an economic disadvantage

• The only remedy available is a lump sum payment – there is no scope for maintenance payments, property transfers or pension sharing

Republic of Ireland

• “Opt out” scheme

• Parties must live together for 2 years with children or 5 years without

• Requirement to live together in an “intimate and committed relationship"

• Claims must be brought within two years of separation

• Requirement to show financial dependence arising from the relationship or its ending

• Limited remedies available when “just and equitable”

Further afield, Australia offers a more expansive comparison: the rights of de facto partners are broadly aligned with those of parties to a marriage. To be eligible, there is a requirement to demonstrate a genuine de facto relationship which has broken down, and the parties should meet one of the following criteria:

• The relationship lasted at least two years

• The parties have a child together

• The relationship is/was registered under a prescribed law of a state or territory

• One party made significant contributions to the property of the other and the failure to make an order would result in serious injustice

Parties can enter into a financial agreement to determine what should happen to their assets upon separation.

Conclusion

The aim of the consultation, the government says, is to make the law clearer and more accessible, giving targeted rights to cohabitants whilst preserving marriage as a distinct institution. Taken together, the government’s proposals would not put cohabitants in the same position as spouses. Instead, they would create a more targeted safety net: one that recognises economic vulnerability arising from cohabitation, while stopping short of importing the full discretionary framework that applies on divorce.

The consultation represents a significant step towards addressing the gap in legal protection for cohabiting couples in England and Wales. If implemented, the proposals would create the most substantial reform of cohabitants’ rights in a generation. They would not place cohabitants on the same footing as spouses, but they would introduce a statutory framework designed to protect vulnerable parties while preserving marriage as a distinct legal institution. The consultation is open for responses, and the outcome will be closely watched by practitioners and cohabiting couples alike.

If you are separating, living with a partner, or unsure what rights you may have, taking early advice can make a real difference. The law in this area is complex and, for many couples, the outcome can depend heavily on the steps taken at an early stage. Our family law team can help you understand your position, protect your interests and make informed decisions about the best way forward. Please do get in touch if you would like to speak to us on an initial no obligation basis.