• Sectors we work in banner(2)

    Quick Reads

Government rejects calls for reform for cohabitees

min read

Cohabiting partners are the fastest growing type of family, with over 3.6 million partners currently cohabiting in the UK. Notwithstanding the significant number of cohabiting families, cohabitants have very little legal protection, and much less than their married or civil partner counterparts, upon the breakdown of their relationship or the death of their partner.

Following a consultation in 2021, in August 2022 the Women and Equalities Committee called for reform to family law to better protect cohabiting couples and their children from financial hardship in the event of separation. The Government have recently published their response to the Committee’s report, rejecting many of the proposed reforms to cohabitation law.

The rejection of these reforms takes place against a back-drop of an increasing number of people choosing not to marry or form a civil partnership, with many relying on the notion that a cohabiting relationship results in a “Common Law Marriage”. This myth, which is bolstered by the perception of cohabitation in many Hollywood Films and TV shows, is leaving millions of people vulnerable and with no established legal rights upon separation or the death of their partner.

Instead, cohabitants rely on a myriad of legislation, relating to property or claims in respect of any children, rather than a single joined up legal framework. This vulnerability also extends to partners who inadvertently exist in a cohabiting relationship by virtue of their religious-only wedding not meeting the required legal formalities.

Recognising the current risk of significant financial vulnerability for cohabitants, the Women and Equalities Committee authored a report, calling for reform of Family Law in England and Wales. The following key proposals set out in the report were rejected by the Government:

  1. The introduction of an opt-out cohabitation scheme pursuant to which there would be a single legal definition of a “Cohabitant” and a legal framework granted to cohabitants, which couples could disapply if they wished. It is interesting to note that this was initially recommended by the Law Commission in 2007
  2. The immediate Implementation of the Law Commission’s 2011 proposals concerning intestacy and family provision claims for cohabiting partners. These proposals provided for cohabiting partners who had lived together for 5 years (2 years if they had a child together who was living with the couple when the decreased died) the right to inherit after each other’s death under the intestacy rules and recommended that a surviving cohabitant who had a child with the deceased should be able to make a family provision claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 even if the relationship had lasted for a shorter period than two years; and
  3. A review of the inheritance tax regime so it is the same for cohabiting partners as it is for married couples and civil partners.

The Government has partially accepted two less significant recommendations made by the Women and Equalities Committee which seek increased public awareness as to the legal distinctions between getting married, forming a civil partnership, or choosing to live together as cohabiting partners, including increased awareness as to the implication of a religious-only marriage. It is noted that it is a concern that so many people believe there is such a thing as a ‘common law marriage’.

The Government’s response has been met with significant disappointment by many family practitioners. The primary rationale behind the Government’s rejection of the above proposals is that the existing work on marriage and divorce laws must be concluded before reforms are made to cohabitation law. It is unclear how long it will take for the existing work on marriage and divorce laws to conclude. If the multiple delays in implementing “no-fault” divorce law is anything to go by, it seems unlikely that we will see significant change to the legal rights of cohabitants in the near future.

The Women and Equalities Committee Chair Caroline Nokes has criticised the Government’s rejection of a recommendation to reform cohabitation law, saying it relies on “flawed logic” and “risks leaving a growing number of cohabitants and children vulnerable.”

Our thinking

  • IBA Annual Conference 2026

    Jean-Baptiste Beauvoir-Planson

    Events

  • Cristiana Felisi writes for We Wealth on when a parent can lose custody of their children

    Maria Cristiana Felisi

    In the Press

    min read
  • The National Security and Investment Act, Five Years On: What the 2025-26 Annual Report Tells Foreign Buyers

    Greg Stonefield

    Insights

    min read
  • The Telegraph quotes Julia Cox on the growing use of Family Investment Companies for inheritance planning

    Julia Cox

    In the Press

    min read
  • Investors’ Chronicle quotes Katie Talbot on the risks and responsibilities of undertaking a trustee position

    Katie Talbot

    In the Press

    min read
  • Retail Collection: Reputation management for brand founders

    Claudine Morgan

    Podcasts

  • EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR)

    Kerry Stares

    Insights

    min read
  • How US Family Offices are reshaping their portfolios

    Hugh Dixon

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Beware the “late invoice” clause: TCC confirms the final date for payment must be fixed to the due date

    William Turner

    Insights

    min read
  • Private equity, venture capital and US Family Offices

    Hugh Dixon

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • How US family offices are navigating a turbulent market

    Hugh Dixon

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Can you get a “quickie divorce” in England and Wales?

    Jamie Kennaugh

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Fraudsters in the Inbox: The Limits of Contractual Causation in Logix Aero v Siam Aero

    Natalya Stone

    Insights

    min read
  • Light Bites, expert nuggets for the seasoned developer: bonus episode

    James Souter

    Podcasts

  • Mace Construct Ltd v Baltic Investment Holdings Ltd: A case highlighting the risk of including tender clarifications and schedules of derogations in building contracts

    Henry Dalton

    Insights

    min read
  • Swiss executors dealing with UK assets – what do I do? Part one

    Sophie Hart

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Child Maintenance: Reform, a Key Appeal, and the Elusive Christmas Order

    David Carver

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • High Court interprets repair covenant in Hotel lease and statutory fire safety obligations

    Chandni Pandya

    Insights

    min read
  • PISCES Platforms Update: Wayve Marks a Milestone as a Fourth Operator Enters the Sandbox

    Greg Stonefield

    Insights

    min read
  • Building safety update: Progress on future changes, including the recategorisation of certain higher risk building works

    David Savage

    Insights

    min read
Back to top