• 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

  • Dominic Lawrance and Catrin Harrison write for Tax Journal on the implications of the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of ‘A Taxpayer v HMRC’

    Dominic Lawrance

    In the Press

  • The Telegraph quotes Sarah Jane Boon on Labour’s plans for cohabitation reform

    Sarah Jane Boon

    In the Press

  • Something Changed – Landlord recovers possession of iconic music venue

    Samuel Lear

    Quick Reads

  • Implications of Johnson v FirstRand – will secret commissions pave the way for claims from Auto ABS noteholders?

    Caroline Greenwell

    Insights

  • When is 20% not 20%? The real impact of the proposed changes to business property relief on trading companies

    Sarah Wray

    Quick Reads

  • Cohabitation law reform

    Hannah Owen

    Quick Reads

  • Relocating to Switzerland: trusts

    Alexia Egger Castillo

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys finds that Gen Z prioritises financial planning and saving amidst growing economic challenges

    Sally Ashford

    News

  • New code of practice for the cyber security of AI development

    Rebecca Steer

    Quick Reads

  • The Path to Commonhold is Set in Stone by the Government: What do landlords and developers need to know about the Government’s White Paper on Commonhold?

    Laura Bushaway

    Quick Reads

  • "I have finished the court case and I have decided that now is not the right time for you to see your Mum" - Judges writing letters to children could become the norm

    Matt Foster

    Quick Reads

  • The World’s Most Exclusive Gold Card

    Kurt Rademacher

    Quick Reads

  • What do the proposed changes to business property relief mean for Investors and Entrepreneurs and their businesses?

    Mary Perham

    Insights

  • The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - the inheritance tax Consultation on agricultural and business property

    Sarah Wray

    Quick Reads

  • Pet Ownership and Family Breakdown: Transatlantic Treatment of Pets on Divorce

    Miranda Fisher

    Quick Reads

  • A Ray of Light for Developers - High Court provides some comfort in recent injunction case

    Georgina Muskett

    Insights

  • Bank of Mum and Dad PLC

    George Harrison

    Quick Reads

  • Mike Barrington writes for Wealth Briefing on sole company directors

    Mike Barrington

    In the Press

  • Miranda Fisher and Matt Foster write for eprivateclient on the consequences of cohabitation

    Miranda Fisher

    In the Press

  • Stephen Burns and Katie Bewick write for Growth Business on the options available for appointing a new director after a company dispute

    Stephen Burns

    In the Press

Back to top