Cohabitation reform: a new beginning for cohabiting couples?
The long-anticipated reform of financial remedies law in England and Wales has moved into sharper focus following the Government’s consultation, A Fairer End to Relationships, launched in June 2026. It represents one of the most significant reviews of financial provision since I became a family lawyer in 1996.
For those of us practising family law, particularly here in Wales, where cohabiting couples are increasingly common, the proposals are overdue. They are a clear acknowledgement that modern family life has changed considerably over recent decades. At the same time, they raise an important question: will these proposed changes to the law for unmarried couples go far enough to reflect how relationships work today?
The common law marriage myth
It is first worth addressing one of the most persistent misconceptions I encounter in practice. There is, quite simply, no such thing as a “common law marriage” in England and Wales.
No matter how long a couple have lived together, cohabiting couples do not automatically acquire the same rights as married couples or civil partners. The belief that they do continues to cause significant difficulties and, in some cases, genuine injustice when relationships end.
It’s a myth that continues to cause real difficulty and, often, genuine injustice when relationships end. As the number of unmarried couples continues to grow, understanding this distinction has become increasingly important.
A resolution approach to cohabitation disputes
As a member of Resolution, a national organisation of family justice professionals committed to a constructive and non-confrontational approach to resolving family disputes, I approach these issues from a particular perspective.
Resolution promotes a constructive, non-confrontational approach to family law, encouraging families to resolve disputes in a way that focuses on the needs of children and helps families reach fair and workable outcomes. In practice, that means encouraging open dialogue, early settlement and solutions that allow families to move forward with dignity.
That approach also underpins collaborative law, in which I am trained.
In the collaborative process, both parties commit to resolving matters without going to court. They meet, with their lawyers, to work through issues in a structured and transparent way. It is often a more humane and effective way of dealing with relationship breakdown, particularly where children are involved.
For cohabiting couples, where the legal framework can often feel uncertain or rigid, collaborative law can provide an opportunity to reach outcomes that better reflect their situation.
Why are cohabitation law changes being considered?
Against that backdrop, the Government’s consultation arrives at an important moment. It expressly recognises demographic change and the need for a clearer and fairer system, particularly for those who may be more vulnerable.
Cohabitation is now a normal part of family life. Yet the law has not kept pace.
Separating cohabitants frequently find themselves relying on complex property and trust principles to resolve disputes. These legal principles can feel disconnected from the practical and emotional realities of their relationship and are often difficult for individuals to navigate.
The Government has now accepted that some form of statutory framework is needed, while remaining keen to draw a clear distinction between cohabitation and marriage.
What could the proposed cohabitation reforms mean?
In broad terms, the consultation proposes a system where only certain cohabiting couples would qualify for financial claims, typically those who have lived together for at least three years or who share a child.
The starting point would be that each person keeps what they legally own, with the court stepping in only where necessary to meet defined needs.
Those needs would focus on practical matters such as housing, income and capital, rather than any broader concept of sharing or lifestyle. Children’s welfare would come first, ongoing maintenance would be limited and generally short-term, and there would be a wider emphasis on achieving a clean break wherever possible. Claims would also need to be brought within two years following separation.
The consultation also includes proposals to improve the position on death, giving qualifying cohabitants clearer rights where a partner dies without leaving a will.
Where the proposed reforms may fall short
While there is much to welcome, there are also areas where the proposals feel cautious, perhaps overly so.
One of the most significant is the decision not to introduce any form of sharing principle for cohabitants.
In practical terms, this means the court would not seek to share assets accumulated during the relationship unless doing so is necessary to meet needs. While that preserves a clear distinction between marriage and cohabitation, it may not always produce outcomes that feel fair, particularly where one party’s contribution has been less direct but nonetheless significant.
The definition of “needs” is also deliberately narrow. The consultation makes clear that more discretionary or lifestyle-based provision, sometimes seen in divorce cases, would not apply. That may increase certainty, but it could also leave some individuals without adequate provision in longer or more complex relationships.
The proposed eligibility criteria raise similar questions. A three-year threshold where there are no children certainly provides clarity, but relationships do not always fit neatly into prescribed categories. Significant financial interdependence can develop in a much shorter period.
Likewise, the emphasis on clean breaks and limited maintenance reflects a desire to avoid ongoing obligations. In many cases, that will be entirely appropriate. However, there will inevitably be situations involving long-term caring responsibilities or health issues where a more flexible approach may be required.
Positive developments for unmarried couples
Despite these concerns, there is much within the consultation that should be viewed positively.
A clear statutory framework should reduce reliance on technical and often unsatisfactory property-based claims. The recognition of domestic abuse, including economic abuse, as a relevant factor in financial decision-making is an important and welcome development.
Similarly, the proposed reform of intestacy rules is long overdue and better reflects the reality of modern relationships and family life.
From a practical perspective, these developments also align with the broader direction of family law, which increasingly encourages early resolution and non-court dispute resolution.
Whether through negotiation, mediation or collaborative law, the focus is increasingly on helping people reach agreement rather than having outcomes imposed through litigation.
Why these changes matter in Wales
For family law practitioners in Wales, the consultation feels particularly significant.
We see firsthand the challenges that cohabiting couples encounter when relationships end and the gap that often exists between public expectation and legal reality. Many clients are genuinely surprised to discover how limited their rights can be.
These proposed law changes for cohabiting couples, therefore, represent an important step forward. They acknowledge the problem and establish a framework for reform.
The key question is whether the balance has been struck correctly. A system that is too rigid risks falling short of fairness, even if it provides greater clarity.
As Resolution has consistently argued, any reform must be sufficiently flexible to take account of the realities of relationships and the economic consequences that can arise from them.
What should cohabiting couples do now?
As the consultation progresses, it will be important for those working in this area to contribute to the discussion. The goal should be a system that is not only clear, but fair and workable in practice.
In the meantime, the legal position for cohabitants remains unchanged
For anyone living together without the protection of marriage or civil partnership, the importance of obtaining early legal advice and, where appropriate, putting a cohabitation agreement in place cannot be overstated. ce of obtaining early legal advice and, where appropriate, putting a cohabitation agreement in place cannot be overstated.
