LoginSubscribe Now
Follow Us
Sign up to our free newsletter
Solicitors Journal LogoInforming the legal profession since 1856

Find the knowledge you need from the SJ library of over 20,000 legal articles

Search now
Solicitors Journal Logo
  • Legal News
  • Opinion
  • Features
  • Practice Notes
  • Business
  • International
  • Court Reports
  • AI Search
  • Digital Edition
  • Subscription Options
  • Advertise with Us
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • FAQ
    • Guide to Authors
Solicitors Journal

Informing the legal profession since 1856.

Follow us

Topics

  • Legal News
  • Opinion
  • Features
  • Practice Notes
  • Business
  • International
  • Court Reports

About

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise with Us
  • FAQ
  • Guide to Authors

Subscribe

  • Subscription Options
  • Digital Edition
  • Free Newsletter

Editorial

editorial@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

Subscriptions

subscriptions@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

Advertising

Advertise with usadvertising@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

© 2026 Solicitors Journal in partnership with the International In-house Counsel Journal

ISSN 0038-1047  ·  Images: Freepix, Unsplash and by permission of the authors

Terms and ConditionsCookie PolicyPrivacy PolicyPLS Clear logoCopyright & permissions
Kirsty MorrisKirsty Morris

Partner, Burgess Mee

Quotation Marks
The introduction of “limited” rights risks creating a new form of misunderstanding, replacing the myth of common law marriage with assumptions about the scope of the new regime

A fairer end? Navigating the new cohabitation proposals

26 Jun 2026|Opinion|Add your comment
Share:
A fairer end? Navigating the new cohabitation proposals

By Kirsty Morris

The Ministry of Justice's landmark consultation promises vital baseline protections, but creates a complex, highly contested landscape for family practitioners

With the launch of the Ministry of Justice’s consultation on June 5, A Fairer End to Relationships, the Government's intentions for introducing distinct cohabitation protections are clear, yet the practical implications of implementing any statutory regime remain highly significant for family law practitioners. 

The proposals suggest a targeted statutory framework, applying only to “eligible” couples, meaning those in an enduring and committed romantic relationship who have either lived together for a minimum period (suggested as being three years) or who share a child. This threshold-based approach was anticipated and mirrors the framework in other jurisdictions. As such, the proposed legislation will not be available to couples who live together for a short period of time, or to individuals who are family members or carers, who live in the same home for more than three years but are not in a romantic relationship.

The definition of cohabitants will be the first challenge for practitioners. Where there are no shared children, they will have to carry out a thorough analysis of whether clients have the requisite level of relationship to qualify for the legal protections. The concept of an “enduring family relationship” is fact‑sensitive and may require judicial interpretation. Factors such as financial interdependence, shared domestic arrangements, and the stability of the relationship are all relevant, but none are determinative. This introduces a degree of uncertainty. Couples who take their time to move in together may find that there are disputed dates for when cohabitation commences, so, in addition to the qualities of the relationship, practitioners may also face arguments about its length. 

The rights proposed in the consultation are deliberately constrained and purposefully less than the rights afforded to married couples on divorce. The model centres on a needs‑based approach, with the starting point that individuals retain what they legally own. Orders for assets to change hands will be made only as required to meet the less well-off party’s needs. This means that each case will require more analysis of what the parties “needs” are and how those can be met from their own assets, before any orders are made at all.  

Once the quantum of the financial award has been calculated, the court will be able to make a similar range of orders as those available on divorce, including property adjustment, lump sums and, in limited cases – where it is really necessary – maintenance for a period of time. 

In addition, to strengthen the idea that cohabitation is a family status to be afforded legal protection, the proposed reforms to inheritance law would represent a significant shift. Extending intestacy rights to qualifying cohabitants would address one of the starkest deficiencies of the current regime, where surviving partners can find themselves with no automatic entitlement to inherit from their partner, regardless of the length or nature of the relationship. 

Latest Articles

With the launch of the Ministry of Justice’s consultation on June 5, A Fairer End to Relationships, the Government's intentions for introducing distinct cohabitation protections are clear, yet the practical implications of implementing any statutory regime remain highly significant for family law practitioners. 

The proposals suggest a targeted statutory framework, applying only to “eligible” couples, meaning those in an enduring and committed romantic relationship who have either lived together for a minimum period (suggested as being three years) or who share a child. This threshold-based approach was anticipated and mirrors the framework in other jurisdictions. As such, the proposed legislation will not be available to couples who live together for a short period of time, or to individuals who are family members or carers, who live in the same home for more than three years but are not in a romantic relationship.

The definition of cohabitants will be the first challenge for practitioners. Where there are no shared children, they will have to carry out a thorough analysis of whether clients have the requisite level of relationship to qualify for the legal protections. The concept of an “enduring family relationship” is fact‑sensitive and may require judicial interpretation. Factors such as financial interdependence, shared domestic arrangements, and the stability of the relationship are all relevant, but none are determinative. This introduces a degree of uncertainty. Couples who take their time to move in together may find that there are disputed dates for when cohabitation commences, so, in addition to the qualities of the relationship, practitioners may also face arguments about its length. 

The rights proposed in the consultation are deliberately constrained and purposefully less than the rights afforded to married couples on divorce. The model centres on a needs‑based approach, with the starting point that individuals retain what they legally own. Orders for assets to change hands will be made only as required to meet the less well-off party’s needs. This means that each case will require more analysis of what the parties “needs” are and how those can be met from their own assets, before any orders are made at all.  

Once the quantum of the financial award has been calculated, the court will be able to make a similar range of orders as those available on divorce, including property adjustment, lump sums and, in limited cases – where it is really necessary – maintenance for a period of time. 

In addition, to strengthen the idea that cohabitation is a family status to be afforded legal protection, the proposed reforms to inheritance law would represent a significant shift. Extending intestacy rights to qualifying cohabitants would address one of the starkest deficiencies of the current regime, where surviving partners can find themselves with no automatic entitlement to inherit from their partner, regardless of the length or nature of the relationship. 

The opt‑out mechanism presents a further layer of tension between autonomy and protection. While it provides couples with the ability to avoid the statutory framework, it also places significant weight on informed decision‑making at the outset or during the relationship. Questions will inevitably arise around disclosure, legal advice, and the circumstances in which such agreements are reached. For practitioners, this is likely to mirror the scrutiny currently applied to nuptial agreements.

These proposals are welcome and necessary. They could lead to a base level of needs-based protections for couples who have a committed long-term relationship but have either deliberately chosen not to marry or simply haven’t got round to it yet. Where the breakdown of a relationship placed one person in a position of financial need, there would be a mechanism through which to alleviate that. 

At the same time, the proposed reforms may drive greater engagement with professionals to draft opt-out or cohabitation agreements. The possibility of an opt‑out regime, combined with increased awareness of default rights, is likely to encourage couples to formalise their expectations earlier. This creates both an opportunity and a responsibility for advisers to ensure that agreements are robust, comprehensive, and genuinely reflective of informed consent.

There is also a broader client‑management challenge. The introduction of “limited” rights risks creating a new form of misunderstanding, replacing the myth of common law marriage with assumptions about the scope of the new regime. Managing expectations will therefore be critical. 

Finally, these proposed changes may have unintended behavioral consequences for couples. The prospect of qualifying thresholds could influence decision‑making around cohabitation timelines, separation, and the formalisation of relationships. 

While the proposed reforms aim to reduce unfairness, they also introduce a more nuanced and potentially contested landscape for another category of family. For practitioners, the task will be to balance legal precision with practical, realistic advice in an area where personal expectations and legal reality have long been misaligned.

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|PLS LogoCopyright & permissions

The opt‑out mechanism presents a further layer of tension between autonomy and protection. While it provides couples with the ability to avoid the statutory framework, it also places significant weight on informed decision‑making at the outset or during the relationship. Questions will inevitably arise around disclosure, legal advice, and the circumstances in which such agreements are reached. For practitioners, this is likely to mirror the scrutiny currently applied to nuptial agreements.

These proposals are welcome and necessary. They could lead to a base level of needs-based protections for couples who have a committed long-term relationship but have either deliberately chosen not to marry or simply haven’t got round to it yet. Where the breakdown of a relationship placed one person in a position of financial need, there would be a mechanism through which to alleviate that. 

At the same time, the proposed reforms may drive greater engagement with professionals to draft opt-out or cohabitation agreements. The possibility of an opt‑out regime, combined with increased awareness of default rights, is likely to encourage couples to formalise their expectations earlier. This creates both an opportunity and a responsibility for advisers to ensure that agreements are robust, comprehensive, and genuinely reflective of informed consent.

There is also a broader client‑management challenge. The introduction of “limited” rights risks creating a new form of misunderstanding, replacing the myth of common law marriage with assumptions about the scope of the new regime. Managing expectations will therefore be critical. 

Finally, these proposed changes may have unintended behavioral consequences for couples. The prospect of qualifying thresholds could influence decision‑making around cohabitation timelines, separation, and the formalisation of relationships. 

While the proposed reforms aim to reduce unfairness, they also introduce a more nuanced and potentially contested landscape for another category of family. For practitioners, the task will be to balance legal precision with practical, realistic advice in an area where personal expectations and legal reality have long been misaligned.

Comments

Dexia v Torino: lessons from the latest swaps ruling
Solicitors Journal

Dexia v Torino: lessons from the latest swaps ruling

The Commercial Court clarifies jurisdiction, capacity and validity issues arising from Italian local-authority swaps
Practice Notes10 Aug 2026
Coroner to examine care home death
Solicitors Journal

Coroner to examine care home death

A coroner will review care practices at Ballater House Care Home after the tragic death of Daniel Lindsay
News10 Aug 2026
Lloyds Bank fraud case heads to trial
Solicitors Journal

Lloyds Bank fraud case heads to trial

The High Court has set a trial date for October 2028 in a significant claim against Lloyds Bank regarding an alleged £1 billion corporate fraud...
News10 Aug 2026
MUF v Secretary of State for Defence: High Court quashes fourth ARAP refusal for Afghan judge
Solicitors Journal

MUF v Secretary of State for Defence: High Court quashes fourth ARAP refusal for Afghan judge

High Court quashes fourth refusal of Afghan judge's relocation application under ARAP scheme.
Court Report7 Aug 2026
Mohammed Sarwar v Bilal Sarwar: High Court dismisses unfair prejudice petition over hotel business split
Solicitors Journal

Mohammed Sarwar v Bilal Sarwar: High Court dismisses unfair prejudice petition over hotel business split

High Court rejects family's unfair prejudice claim after finding hotel business division agreement genuine.
Court Report7 Aug 2026
David Hill v HMRC: Upper Tribunal clarifies scope of reasonable excuse based on adviser reliance
Solicitors Journal

David Hill v HMRC: Upper Tribunal clarifies scope of reasonable excuse based on adviser reliance

Upper Tribunal partly allows appeal over penalties for non-compliance with HMRC information notices.
Court Report7 Aug 2026
Code Students v Nottingham City Council: High Court refuses judicial review over rival scheme approval
Solicitors Journal

Code Students v Nottingham City Council: High Court refuses judicial review over rival scheme approval

High Court refuses permission for judicial review of Nottingham student accommodation planning decision.
Court Report7 Aug 2026
KDY v Nicholas Langham: High Court strikes out 300-page claim against eleven defendants
Solicitors Journal

KDY v Nicholas Langham: High Court strikes out 300-page claim against eleven defendants

High Court strikes out sprawling multi-defendant claim brought by mother on behalf of disabled son.
Court Report7 Aug 2026
David Abbott v Ministry of Defence: High Court orders 60% costs in hearing loss litigation
Solicitors Journal

David Abbott v Ministry of Defence: High Court orders 60% costs in hearing loss litigation

High Court orders Ministry of Defence to pay 60% of costs in hearing loss litigation.
Court Report7 Aug 2026
SOCAR v Mubariz Mansimov: Commercial Court retains jurisdiction over Palmali asset-stripping claims
Solicitors Journal

SOCAR v Mubariz Mansimov: Commercial Court retains jurisdiction over Palmali asset-stripping claims

Commercial Court dismisses jurisdiction challenge to SOCAR's claims over alleged Palmali asset restructurings.
Court Report7 Aug 2026
York SD Limited v HMRC: Upper Tribunal grants partial permission to appeal in EIS solar panel case
Solicitors Journal

York SD Limited v HMRC: Upper Tribunal grants partial permission to appeal in EIS solar panel case

Upper Tribunal partly allows appeal permission over enterprise investment scheme relief in solar panel dispute.
Court Report7 Aug 2026
CDE v NHS North East London ICB: High Court refuses judicial review over disabled child's care plan
Solicitors Journal

CDE v NHS North East London ICB: High Court refuses judicial review over disabled child's care plan

Deputy High Court judge refuses permission for judicial review over care provision for life-limited teenager.
Court Report7 Aug 2026
Aerotron v Hermes Aviation: High Court grants stay of enforcement pending appeal
Solicitors Journal

Aerotron v Hermes Aviation: High Court grants stay of enforcement pending appeal

Master Fontaine stays enforcement of Maltese judgement debt pending Aerotron's appeal against recognition ruling.
Court Report7 Aug 2026
SJ Interview: Hannah Field
Solicitors Journal

SJ Interview: Hannah Field

Hannah Field, head of Shoosmiths’ London office and its Dispute Resolution & Litigation team in London, speaks to Solicitors Journal about the firm’s growth strategy,...
Interview28 Jul 2026
The judgement behind the answer
Solicitors Journal

The judgement behind the answer

Foreword7 Aug 2026