On 5 June 2026, the Ministry of Justice launched a public consultation entitled “A fairer end to relationships”, which proposes major reform to the law on financial remedies on divorce and the rights of cohabitants. In this article, we consider the proposals affecting cohabitants, both on separation and on death, and what they could mean for unmarried couples.

The outcome of the Ministry of Justice’s consultation will have far-reaching implications for society as a whole, given the range of potential reforms. Part 1 of the consultation considers reforms to the law of financial remedies on divorce. Parts 2 and 3 consider reforms to the law for cohabitants, on separation and death (namely whether the law should recognise certain cohabitants within the intestacy framework). It is the law on cohabitants’ rights that has garnered the most attention, given the limited protections currently available to unmarried couples and the far-reaching impact the proposed changes could have.

Time for reform

The campaign to reform the law for cohabiting couples has been long and hard-fought. It has aimed to address the lack of financial security at the end of a relationship for cohabitants who have, to all intents and purposes, lived as a married couple. The Government rightly considers that “legal protection should be targeted at relationships which demonstrate stability, mutual commitment and a shared life, rather than more casual or short-term arrangements”. The proposals make an important distinction between couples in a “romantic, committed, long-term interdependent” relationship and others who live together, such as siblings.

The consultation deals with the most personal of subjects: the end of a relationship and the financial future of those affected, including their children. That is why it is so important.

There are now 3.5 million couples in the UK living together outside of marriage or civil partnership, a number that has more than doubled over the past three decades. With falling marriage rates, that number shows no signs of letting up. Yet the law in England and Wales has failed to keep pace. While it makes financial provision for children, it offers no comparable rights to unmarried partners who have lived in a relationship akin to marriage, leaving the fastest-growing family type in the UK without adequate protection.

The Government has come under pressure to address the deficiencies in the current law and strengthen the rights of cohabiting partners.  The reforms also respond to the widespread misconception that cohabiting couples automatically acquire the same rights as married couples or civil partners simply by living together.

What might cohabitation reform look like?

The consultation is wide-ranging, but in broad terms, it considers what financial remedies might be available when a cohabiting relationship comes to an end, either on relationship breakdown or on the death of either party.

Rights on separation

The consultation invites responses about the following issues:

• How a “cohabitant” should be defined. The proposal is to limit the term to those living together in an enduring family relationship, with a proposed checklist being used to determine whether an individual qualifies.
• Whether a minimum age of 18 should apply before a cohabitant can benefit from the proposed reforms.
• Whether the couple should have lived together for a minimum period before being eligible for the rights and protections offered by the cohabitation framework. The proposal is three years, or no minimum time period if there is a child of the family.
• The imposition of a time limit in which to bring a claim after the relationship has ended. The proposal is for a two-year time limit, starting on the date of separation.
• What remedies and/or maintenance provisions should be made available to cohabitants, including whether any financial outcome should be based on needs only? A needs-only approach would preserve a clear distinction between outcomes for married and unmarried couples.

Rights on death

The consultation also proposes introducing reforms to the intestacy rules, so that they better reflect “the reality of modern relationships”. Again, this would address what many see as an injustice where a couple have been in a committed relationship akin to marriage but have few legal protections on the death of a partner.

As with the position on relationship breakdown, the consultation proposes a definition of a “cohabitant” and a minimum time period before a surviving cohabitant becomes eligible. It also asks whether the intestacy rights should mirror those for a married couple.

The law will need to be sufficiently clear to avoid arguments about whether a relationship falls within the definition of cohabitation or has lasted long enough. Otherwise, needless litigation may ensue before any substantive issues are addressed.

Opting out

While there is widespread support for reform, some will not agree with the proposals. They will feel strongly about the need to preserve what the consultation refers to as “the sanctity of marriage” and maintain a clear legal “dividing lines” between marriage and cohabitation. A balance must therefore be struck between safeguarding the position of cohabitants and stopping short of the full protections afforded by marriage.

In addition to a more limited basis for financial provision for cohabitants, the consultation proposes an ‘opt out’ provision (subject to certain formalities), so that couples are free to determine whether or not the framework should apply to them. This is particularly important for couples whose decision not to marry is based on a mutual desire to maintain financial independence, such as those wishing to preserve future inheritances for children from a previous relationship.

Domestic abuse

A critical thread running through the consultation is ensuring protections are in place for those who have experienced domestic abuse, including economic abuse. Reform will have a profound impact on unmarried couples where the victim has felt trapped in a relationship due to financial dependencies, financial control and fear of financial insecurity should they leave their partner. Proposed reform for cohabiting relationships could help to alleviate such potentially harmful outcomes and provide a road to independence for victims of domestic abuse. This is a hugely compelling argument for reform, particularly given the prevalence of domestic abuse in society.

Partner Emma Hatley comments,

“The jurisdiction of England and Wales is rightly renowned for delivering fair outcomes on divorce. Yet, for too long, there has been a notable gap in the law for couples who have lived as spouses without formalising their relationship through marriage or civil partnership. As the law on financial remedies has evolved to meet the realities of modern divorce, so too should it develop to provide appropriate protection for cohabiting couples, albeit with carefully calibrated safeguards.

“For some, the decision not to marry is a conscious one, reflecting a wish not to assume mutual financial obligations. An effective regime must therefore preserve individual autonomy, with a clear and workable opt-out mechanism, akin to a nuptial agreement.

“For many family lawyers, this reform is long overdue. With a steadily increasing cohabiting population, there are cases in which it is plainly unjust that parties are left without recourse beyond often complex and inadequate property-based claims, both on relationship breakdown and on death.”

Stewarts welcomes the opportunity to participate in the consultation and promote meaningful change on these important issues. Until there is a change in the law, cohabiting couples should seek specialist advice on the protections currently available to them if their relationship breaks down. They should also consider the measures that can be put in place now, such as a cohabitation agreement, to regulate their affairs both during the relationship and in the event of separation.