On 5 June 2026 the Government published A Fairer End To Relationships, a consultation paper addressing both the current uncertainty surrounding financial outcomes for divorcing couples and the absence of a statutory framework for financial provision between cohabitees.

Cohabiting Couples

The proposed scheme would operate on an “opt out” basis, allowing couples to agree the provision should not apply to them. Where a couple has not opted out, the scheme would benefit couples who have been living together for 3 years or longer, or who are parents of a common child.  However those under the age of 18 are excluded.

The Government has made clear that the proposed protection would not be equivalent to that available on divorce.   There would be no discretionary element to assess needs, which is currently available on divorce. Instead, the premise is that a clean break, with no ongoing maintenance paid from one party to another, will be very much the standard outcome.

The starting point of the approach would be that each person will retain the assets held within their own name. There would then be a narrower assessment of whether any further financial orders may be needed to meet defined needs.  These needs are to be limited to “essential” needs, although to be viewed in the context of the standard of living enjoyed during the relationship.

This could therefore result in a situation where one party to a cohabiting couple retains a significantly greater share of the assets due to the other party already holding sufficient assets in their own name to meet their “essential” needs.  Regardless of the length of the cohabiting relationship, there would be no presumption that resources should be shared equally.

When compared with the present position where a cohabitee has no claim on the other’s income, property, savings, business assets or pension, this proposals represent a clear step forward.  It is also significant that the scheme operates on an ‘opt-out’ rather than an ‘opt-in’ scheme, resulting in more couples benefiting unknowingly from the provisions.

Including couples who have a common child within the proposed scheme could create an overlap with the existing financial orders available under Schedule 1 of the Children Act. It seems likely that any action brought under this new cohabite legislation may well prevent a separate application being made for the child alone.

Pre-Nuptial Agreements

The Government also proposes that pre-nuptial agreements should become binding on divorce, provided certain requirements are met. The agreement would need to be entered into no later than 28 days before the wedding, with each party receiving independent legal advice and providing full financial disclosure. 

The agreement must be executed as a form of deed, which means it must be in writing, dated, and each party’s signature is witnessed.  The agreement cannot exclude the obligation to meet one party’s needs, and so this would leave open a door to arguing that, at the time of divorce, the provision given in the agreement failed to meet those needs.

However, it seems that the assessment of needs in such cases would be more in line with the restrictive approach proposed for cohabitees than the broader approach currently applied on divorce.