At the moment, family law is silent on the rights and claims cohabiting couples have against each other, unless children are involved. Instead, when such a relationship breaks down, couples have to pursue their claims in the civil court under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (colloquially known as “TLATA”). Instead of having a broad discretion to make financial awards based on principles such as “sharing” and “needs” (as is the case for married couples), the civil court has to apply land law and trust principles. These principles are complicated for non-lawyers to understand; many of them come, by a long and winding legal path, from rules originally designed for property disputes between businesses, not for separating couples. The civil courts are also ill-equipped to deal with the unique issues that can arise in familial disputes, such as domestic violence and issues of coercive control.
Separately, if an unmarried couple has children, they may need to bring separate proceedings in the family court under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989. Although interlinked, the areas covered by TLATA and Schedule 1 are kept separate by a legal process which is difficult for parties to navigate. This demarcation increases costs and causes delay. In a cost-of-living crisis, this is unfair on families and particularly, children who need stability.
In short, reform is long overdue.
The government’s report recognises that the myth of a common law marriage must be addressed. 47% of unmarried couples believe that they acquire rights by virtue of the length of their relationship and are unaware of the limited financial provision available to them on separation or the death of their partner[1]. When 3.5 million couples are unmarried[2] and over half of babies born in 2022 were born to unwed parents[3], this is a significant portion of the general public. A public information campaign is clearly necessary.
The report suggests that the law should define cohabitants as a couple “living together in an enduring family relationship”. Implicit in this definition is that the relationship is romantic. This means that people living together as siblings or flatmates would not be cohabitants, and only adults over the age of 18 will be considered cohabitants.
Before someone could make an application for a financial claim against a cohabiting partner they would need to demonstrate that they have lived together for a minimum of three years unless there is a child living there (whether born to the couple, or treated as a “child of the family”). If there is a child of the family then the report says no minimum duration should apply.
A two-year time-limit for cohabitants to bring claims after separation is intended to ensure that people cannot come back out of the woodwork with claims years later but the breakdown of a relationship rarely has a clean end point so there remains scope for parties to become embroiled in legal disputes.
The report is suggesting that the principle of “needs”, which will be familiar to any family lawyer, should be extended so that it applies to suitably qualified cohabiting relationships too.
In the context of divorce, “needs” is a concept that looks towards what a person requires to meet their reasonable housing costs and monthly outgoings. When assessing what these are, the court will consider the standard of living during the marriage. The government suggests that applying the principle of needs, but crucially not sharing, to cohabiting relationships will mean that the distinct legal status of marriage (and benefits of it) will be preserved whilst suitable safeguards will be put in place for otherwise financially vulnerable cohabitants. In theory, it should also provide greater stability for children if their parents’ relationship breaks down.
When applying the principle of “needs” to cohabitants, the report suggests that needs can be less than the standard of living during the relationship and “discretionary needs” (i.e. everyday luxuries, like holidays) should be excluded from the assessment. The proposal is therefore less generous to cohabitants than it is to married couples with needs-based claims. The proposal is meant to provide economically weaker parties, usually women, with financial support on a relationship breakdown so they are not left in a position of real need but not to put them in the same position they would be had they been married.
Some experts argue that this does not go far enough.
Resolution, a network of family law professionals, has said in response to the proposal that “needs are needs, regardless of whether a couple are married or not married.”[4] It supports a suggestion that having regard to the standard of living should be relevant when assessing a cohabitant’s needs and that discretionary needs should also be included. Resolution is concerned about a two-tier approach being inadvertently implemented where children of married parents receive better protection than children of unmarried parents.
When assessing needs relating to children in Schedule 1, the court at the moment makes no distinction from needs in divorce proceedings. So should the report be implemented, without any amendments regarding “needs”, itwould be less generous than the law that applies currently to unmarried parents.
The government is proposing that the remedies available to cohabiting couples would generally mirror those that are available to divorcing couples. This means that the court would have the power to make the following orders in relation to cohabitants:
The proposal suggests that the court would also have the power to make maintenance orders, including in cases where there are no children. In contrast to matrimonial cases, under the proposal, if the parties were unmarried a maintenance order would only be made in exceptional circumstances, such as severe illness. Maintenance would also be time-limited with no possibility to extend.
The new scope of the court’s powers will be of concern to people who have purposefully chosen not to get married to keep their financial arrangements separate. The government’s report therefore opines that there should be an opt-out process where people can elect not to have any new law reflecting the proposed reforms apply to their relationship. This begs questions, however, as to the legitimacy of such opt-outs, ie to what extent are they chosen independently and without undue pressure?
The risk with the suggestion of an opt-out is also that people may not be aware of the new regime or their ability to opt out of it. People who may not want their relationship to be considered a cohabiting one under the law may, unless they know it to be proactive and opt-out, be unexpectedly caught by these new rules.
Successive UK governments have been suggesting for decades that the law on cohabitation should change and to date very little progress has been made. The proposal was published on 5 June 2026 and the government invited comments on it by 14 August 2026. There has been no timetable put forward for new legislation to be discussed or passed in Parliament and so, if changes to the law are going to be made then it is unlikely to be for some time yet.
The proposed reforms would, for the first time, give cohabiting couples a meaningful framework of financial rights on separation. However, the proposals are not without controversy, and there is currently no timetable for legislation. If you are in a cohabiting relationship, or advising someone who is, now is a good time to consider what protections are, and are not, in place.
If you would like advice on any of the issues raised in this article, please do not hesitate to get in touch with a member of our family team.
[1] Law Commission, A fairer end to relationships: A consultation on reforming financial remedies on divorce and strengthening protections for cohabitants at the end of their relationship, June 2026 (Page 29): John Curtice et al (eds), British Social Attitudes: The 36th Report (NatCen 2019).
[2] Law Commission, A fairer end to relationships: A consultation on reforming financial remedies on divorce and strengthening protections for cohabitants at the end of their relationship, June 2026 (Page 29): Office for National Statistics, Families and households (dataset, 17 April 2026)
[3] Law Commission, A fairer end to relationships: A consultation on reforming financial remedies on divorce and strengthening protections for cohabitants at the end of their relationship, June 2026 (Page 29): Law Commission, Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown (Cm 7182, 2007), para 1.10; Office for National Statistics, Birth characteristics in England and Wales: 2022 (17 May 2024)
[4] Resolution’s response to the Ministry of Justice, August 2026 (page 38)
Naomi has extensive experience in divorce and associated financial claims, disputes relating to children and pre-nuptial agreements. She also advises unmarried couples on their rights and claims against each other.
Naomi has worked on extremely high net value cases but is equally adept at advising people with smaller asset bases. She regularly deals with cases involving complex assets including privately owned businesses, trusts and offshore assets. Naomi is tenacious and cares for her clients, who she understands are often experiencing one of the most stressful times of their lives; she works collaboratively with clients to obtain the result that best suits their objectives.
Naomi is a member of Resolution. Naomi joined Harbottle & Lewis in 2017 and qualified in 2019.
She advises on divorce and dealing with spouse’s financial claims against each other, whether through court proceedings or using alternative forms of dispute resolution where appropriate. Lidia can obtain emergency injunctions for clients who may be at risk of physical or emotional harm from their partners.
Lidia also acts for parents in disputes relating to children, for example, applications for child arrangement orders which regulate children’s living arrangements as between their parents, obtaining financial provision from non-resident parents for children and obtaining parental orders for the intended parents of children born via surrogacy arrangements.
Lidia drafts and negotiates pre-emptive agreements which regulate financial claims on the breakdown of relationships including nuptial agreements in the case of spouses and cohabitation agreements for unmarried couples. Lidia’s clients come from a wide range of professional backgrounds including media, finance, fashion, sport and those with complex business interests held across jurisdictions in different corporate and trust structures.
Alex’s skills are broad and varied. As well as specialising in sorting out high value financial disputes on divorce, he is adept at resolving complex issues concerning children’s arrangements. Alex also has a burgeoning wealth protection practice, which includes advising on, and drafting, pre-nuptial agreements.
Alex is trusted and instructed by clients from a wide range of backgrounds. They include entrepreneurs, city professionals, landowners, home-makers and professional sportspeople.
Recognised as a recommended family lawyer by Spear’s, Alex is a ranked solicitor in both Chambers UK and The Legal 500. He is also a member of Resolution.