{"id":5032,"date":"2026-06-17T11:25:49","date_gmt":"2026-06-17T10:25:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dawsoncornwell.com\/?p=5032"},"modified":"2026-06-17T11:49:47","modified_gmt":"2026-06-17T10:49:47","slug":"abigail-reading-discusses-the-cohabitation-rights-bill-welcome-reform-with-room-for-improvement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dawsoncornwell.com\/es\/insights\/abigail-reading-discusses-the-cohabitation-rights-bill-welcome-reform-with-room-for-improvement\/","title":{"rendered":"Abigail Reading discusses the Cohabitation Rights Bill: welcome reform, with room for improvement"},"content":{"rendered":"
On 5 June 2026 the government published its draft Cohabitation Rights Bill alongside a detailed consultation paper titled \u2018A fairer end to relationships\u2019. Together, these mark the beginning of long-awaited reforms to the law that governs the financial rights of cohabitants on separation. For family law practitioners across England and Wales, the introduction of greater rights and protections for separating cohabitants is a long overdue development. Family lawyers have called for reform for decades and are all too familiar with the difficult advice that must be given to clients with limited legal protection on the breakdown of their non-marital relationship. However, the proposed framework as currently drafted requires refinement if it is to deliver fair outcomes without creating new practical difficulties for separating couples, practitioners and the already inundated family justice system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In particular, further consideration is needed in the following areas:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
a: the 3 year qualification period<\/strong> As currently drafted, cohabitants who have lived together continuously as a couple for at least 3 years, and who are not married or in a civil partnership, could acquire financial rights. This proposed qualification period seems relatively short in the context of modern life.\u00a0 Rising housing costs, an increasingly competitive rental market and the broader cost of living pressures mean that younger couples are moving in together earlier than they might otherwise choose to do so. In some cases, cohabitation is driven more by practicality and limited housing options as by any settled intention to make a long-term legal or financial commitment to one another.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Where cohabitation stems from practical necessity, rather than a conscious decision to create a lasting family unit, it is fair to ask whether these people, who have actively chosen not to enter into a legal union such as marriage or a civil partnership, should automatically acquire rights as qualifying cohabitants after just 36 months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As currently drafted, the Bill creates too broad a qualifying threshold and ultimately risks treating materially different relationships in the same way, for example a couple who have lived together for 10 years and have a child, compared with a younger couple who have cohabited for a much shorter period without the same degree of financial interdependency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Question box 29 of the consultation paper invites the public to indicate whether they disagree with this proposed 3 year minimum duration and, if so, to select an alternative threshold, ranging from 1 to more than 5 years. A longer minimum period, such as 5 years, may better reflect the distinction between couples who have made a settled and long-term commitment to living together and those whose cohabitation has been driven primarily by practical necessity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
b: gifts from parents<\/strong> Another area of potential complication is the increase of parental gifts and contributions towards property purchases. In today\u2019s housing market, most first time buyers have the benefit of financial assistance from parents. In scenarios where funds are provided to one party, or to the couple jointly, and if cohabitation rights are triggered after a relatively short period, there is a risk that those gifted funds will become the subject of a broader financial dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The proposed reforms will need to address, with real clarity, how such third party contributions are to be treated and what safeguards cohabitants should be encouraged to put in place to avoid later disputes. Without clear rules on third party contributions, the reforms may unintentionally increase litigation around property ownership and family-funded purchases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
c: opt-out agreements<\/strong> The proposed Bill includes an opt-out mechanism for cohabitants who do not want the statutory rights to apply, but there is concern about how workable this would be in practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For the opt-out agreement to stand up if challenged later down the line, both parties will need to have received independent legal advice before agreeing to it. This is right, however, proper legal advice cannot be given in a vacuum and family lawyers will generally need at least some financial disclosure in order to advise properly on whether or not an opt out is suitable in the specific case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The question therefore is whether a 27-year-old moving in with a partner of two years is likely to be able to afford or treat as a priority, obtaining independent legal advice before doing so. Equally, will the other party be willing to provide sufficient financial disclosure at that stage of the relationship to enable lawyers to advise with confidence on the implications of the opt-out agreement? If not, the opt-out process may be inaccessible or vulnerable to later challenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
d: capacity of the family courts<\/strong> The family court is already operating at maximum capacity yet under the proposed framework, an entirely new category of financial disputes between qualifying cohabitants would need determination by the court, requiring further court time and judicial availability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In September 2025, the President of the Family Division announced that the FRC was expected to operate at limited capacity for the following 6 months due to insufficient allocation of family court sitting days. For family lawyers, this came as no surprise; we have become accustomed to navigating a court system which is at breaking point, but it makes it clear that most family courts do not currently have the infrastructure to deal with a whole new category of family disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The family court operating at maximum capacity is not just an administrative issue. It is one that affects substantive justice by creating further delays for disputes that require urgent determination, such as child arrangements and protective orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Bill will need to be clear in setting out what equates to an economic disadvantage or a financial benefit so that the courts are not clogged up with unmeritorious claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is no doubt cohabitants require greater rights and protections, especially where there are children or there is economic dependency, however, in circumstances where the qualification is too broad, the opt-out alternative is too expensive or impractical, and we are all operating within an already under resourced family justice system, there is a risk that further injustices will be created.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dawsoncornwell.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/Abigai-Final-WEB-2026.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n