“A Fairer End to Relationships”: First Thoughts on the Government's Landmark Consultation
min readThe government has today published its consultation paper, A Fairer End to Relationships, bringing together three interconnected areas of potential family law reform:
- Financial remedies on divorce and dissolution of marriage;
- Financial provision for cohabitants on separation; and
- Inheritance provision for cohabitants on death.
The consultation runs until 14 August 2026.
These topics are not new. Nearly two decades ago, in 2007, the Law Commission published recommendations on potential reform of the law when cohabiting relationships end, either by separation or death. Over a decade ago, in 2014 the Law Commission published recommendations on the recognition of nuptial agreements, financial needs and matrimonial property. In 2024, the Law Commission published its scoping report on the potential routes to reform of financial remedy law on divorce. None of the recommendations were taken further, until now, perhaps?
The call for reform has sounded loudly for years:
- As to reform of cohabitation law, the significant deficiencies in the protection offered to cohabitants has received heavy criticism by those who understand its failures. It would likely be criticised more widely too if there were a better understanding of the extent to which cohabitants are exposed and vulnerable, but worryingly many still mistakenly believe in protection from a ‘common law marriage’. As statistics show cohabitation is the fastest growing family model in England, reform cannot be deferred any longer.
- As to reform of financial remedy law, damningly the scoping report in 2024 said “…the law lacks certainty and accessibility to an extent that could be argued is inconsistent with the rule of law”.
The case for change is clear. The question is, what should the shape of that change be? In late 2025, the government made clear the aim of the consultation was to “bring consistency and fairness across marriage, civil partnerships and cohabitation” and that the core priority was a wish to protect children and ensure they are put “at the centre of what happens when relationships break down”.
Echoing these comments, the consultation makes plain that there are 4 guiding principles that have informed the proposed approach:
- Prioritising fair outcomes for children with child welfare at the centre of decisions;
- Protecting those most at risk of harm when a relationship ends, with reference to women, children and survivors of domestic abuse;
- Clarity and predictability of outcomes to reduce conflict and litigation and bolster confidence and public awareness; and
- Preserving the distinct status of marriage, recognising that protection for cohabitants should be differentiated.
How does the consultation suggest these principles are appropriately balanced and reflected if there is to be new law?
What the consultation proposes
- Financial Remedies on Divorce
Where the 2024 Law Commission scoping report outlined four possible models, each providing different levels of certainty or discretion, the consultation favours the “codification-plus” approach – the second option on the spectrum running from broad discretion to certainty. The idea behind this model is that the existing law will be “codified” with additional statutory guidance provided on discrete issues where current law is uncertain, such as “needs” and “sharing”. In this way, the aim is to provide more consistent and predictable outcomes.
“Fairness” would remain the overarching objective with the starting point being the equal sharing of matrimonial property, subject to needs requiring a different outcome. With reference to the 2025 Supreme Court decision in Standish v Standish, statutory clarity would be provided on the identification of matrimonial and non-matrimonial property.
The favoured structure adopts a three-stage approach: (1) child’s welfare; (2) capital and income needs; (3) discretionary needs if resources permit.
Recognising widespread support for the policy and the benefits of certainty and autonomy, qualifying nuptial agreements would be binding provided agreement was fully informed and freely made – it would need to have contractual validity and the formality of a deed, it must be signed at least 28 days before marriage and with the benefit of both financial disclosure and independent legal advice for each party. Such agreement would not be able to contract out of meeting the other party’s financial needs, but the suggestion is that those needs may be interpreted more in line with the narrower assessment proposed for cohabitation (see further below) rather than accounting for “discretionary needs”.
The consultation highlights the government’s commitment to tackle violence against women and girls and views are invited on the most effective way to recognise domestic abuse in financial remedy cases as well as other forms of misconduct such as dissipation of assets, litigation misconduct or non-disclosure. This is a ‘hot-topic’ and a highly emotive one that has generated conflicting judicial approaches; careful consideration of the appropriate approach is particularly important.
2. Cohabitants on Separation
Proposed reform would introduce a statutory framework applicable to couples who have been living together in an “enduring family relationship” with cohabiting relationships qualifying either after three years of cohabitation or if there is a child. The suggested approach includes an option to “opt out” where both parties agree.
In line with the fourth guiding principle underpinning the proposals for reform, the intention is not to provide the same financial protection as marriage, in recognition of the different status of marriage. However, there is recognition of the limited protection available under the current law and, reinforcing the second guiding principle, a reminder that this often has a greater impact on those who are particularly vulnerable and are left in financial difficulty when the relationship ends.
The suggested approach would operate so that each party retained their own assets, subject to a narrow assessment of what further financial orders might be required in order to meet defined needs. There would be no discretionary element to the assessment of needs, as might occur under the third stage of the approach proposed for reform of financial remedies on divorce. There would be focus on achieving a clean break where possible, with any maintenance payments being exceptional and time limited.
3. Cohabitants on Intestacy
The consultation proposes reform so that intestacy rights are extended to qualifying cohabitants so they would automatically inherit if their partner dies without a valid will, in much the same way (and order of entitlement) as married couples. Qualifying cohabitants would also be granted rights to administer the estate.
However, whereas the suggestion is that cohabitants would acquire rights on separation if there is an “enduring family relationship”, the government’s preferred approach on an intestacy is that such rights would only arise if there is a relationship of “marriage-equivalence”, with views invited on whether there should be a minimum duration period and whether the position should be different if there are children.
Conclusion
So many of the areas covered by the consultation are long overdue for reform. It is plain that legal protection for cohabitants has been lacking for years, leading to significant hardship for many and disproportionately impacting those who are most vulnerable. So too is it plain that the broad discretion afforded to judges in financial remedy cases means that the vast majority of people navigating the financial aspects of a divorce have no cohesive framework to guide them, something that is both unhelpful and likely to promote dispute. Nor, under current English law, is there any way for parties to reliably look for certainty and autonomy by entering into a nuptial agreement to govern their own financial arrangements. In this respect, we lag behind so many other countries that do give binding status to nuptial agreements.
The case for reform is obvious. Whether it will happen – and if so when and in what form – is less clear.
The way people form families in England and Wales has changed significantly over the past quarter of a century, reflecting changing patterns of family life. Yet the law hasn’t kept pace with the realities of modern families, leaving many without rights and facing financial hardship. This consultation proposes some of the biggest reforms to family law in decades – bringing the law into the 21st century, helping families feel better off and increasing protections for millions.
