• Sectors we work in banner(2)

    Quick Reads

Government rejects calls for reform for cohabitees

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

  • Blazing a Trail in Real Estate: Inspiring Female Leaders of the Future

    Georgina Muskett

    Events

  • Understanding Vacant Possession: A Key Element in Property Transactions

    Emma Preece

    Insights

  • Gaven Cheong quoted in CNBC on Hong Kong’s appeal to family offices amid geopolitical uncertainty

    Gaven Cheong

    In the Press

  • Cristiana Felisi comments in We Wealth on adoption in special cases and the change of a child’s surname

    Maria Cristiana Felisi

    In the Press

  • Family Offices Across Generations: Purpose, Trends, and Key Considerations

    Sangna Chauhan

    Quick Reads

  • Martyn’s Law: What Historic Houses Need to Know

    Naomi Nettleton

    Insights

  • Members of joint ventures cannot unilaterally bring adjudication proceedings on behalf of their joint venture

    Henry Dalton

    Insights

  • Child Maintenance and Sport: A Game of Two Halves

    David Carver

    Quick Reads

  • Understanding risk-based human rights due diligence

    Kerry Stares

    Insights

  • Commonhold: Best Supporting Tenure or Leading Role?

    Sarah Bradd

    Quick Reads

  • AI and Data Protection

    Victor Mound

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys Strengthens Swiss Tax Capabilities with Appointment of Frédéric Ney in Geneva

    Frédéric Ney

    News

  • Can you divorce your parents in England and Wales?

    Miranda Fisher

    Quick Reads

  • Biodiversity Net Gain: VAT considerations for Land Managers

    Elizabeth Hughes

    Insights

  • Entrepreneurship, Investment and Risk: Key Insights for Family Offices

    Marcus Yorke-Long

    Quick Reads

  • Michael Wells-Greco and Hannah Owen write for Today's Family Lawyer on a recent UK Supreme Court case that considers whether an adoption order can be set aside on welfare grounds

    Michael Wells-Greco

    In the Press

  • eprivateclient quotes Richard Honey and Charlotte Hill on how the Property (Digital Assets) Act in the UK is impacting private clients

    Charlotte Hill

    In the Press

  • Navigating ESG Regulatory Change in Supply Chain Contracts

    Mark Dewar

    Insights

  • Sally Ashford comments in Spear's, IFA Magazine, and eprivateclient on the UK Spring Statement

    Sally Ashford

    In the Press

  • Tamasin Perkins writes for IFA Magazine on risks arising from the intersection of family wealth and commercial lending

    Tamasin Perkins

    In the Press

Back to top