UK proposes new law which allows your girlfriend or boyfriend to claim shares on your property after break-up even if you were not married

Unmarried romantic partners in UK could be allowed to ask courts for a share of their ex’s assets if a breakup leaves them unable to meet their basic needs, under proposals being considered by the government.

While some say the plans tackle “completely outdated and inadequate” laws governing relationships, others have called the move an attack on freedom of choice.

After a consultation started by the Starmer government came to a close this month, we took a look at what it really means for you and how to get your finances in order.

What rights do unmarried couples lack right now?

Some 46% of the population in England and Wales wrongly believe that couples who live together form a “common law marriage”, according to a 2022 Women and Equalities Committee report.

“The law currently gives cohabiting couples very little protection if they separate,” says Yael Selig, partner and family law specialist at Osbornes Law.

You have no automatic right to a share of the property owned in your partner’s name, even if you contributed to the household.

Disputes over a shared home are instead dealt with under trust law, resulting in “complex, expensive and far less generous” financial remedies, says Selig.

Nor do you have any right to claim maintenance or part of your ex’s pension.

Government proposals would change all that. Let’s take a look…

Who would the rules apply to?

Adults in committed, interdependent, romantic relationships who have lived together for at least three years, or who share a child and have lived together for any period.

The intended beneficiaries include financially exposed women who sacrificed their career to care for the couple’s children, or victims of domestic abuse for whom financial dependence was a barrier to leaving.

What are the proposals?

When a relationship ends and simply distributing the couple’s assets by who owns what is not enough to meet the basic needs of each partner or their children, the courts could get involved.

They would distribute the couple’s assets in a way that ensures everyone can afford suitable housing and living costs. Comforts and luxuries would not be considered.

Children’s needs would come first, such as ensuring the primary caregiver has the right resources, before the separating couple is considered individually.

The government proposed the courts look at each partner’s earning capacity, financial resources, age, any disabilities and the length of relationship.

How would it apply?

Automatically, with the option for couples to opt out “if they mutually agree to do so”.

This has proved a point of contention for some – we’ll come back to this later.

What could the courts do?

Applications to a court would have to be made by one of the separating partners within two years of the relationship ending.

The courts would prioritise a “clean break” by addressing eligible claims using capital.

But if that’s not possible, they would have access to the same toolbox at the disposal of divorce courts, if not the same size of awards.

That includes property adjustment orders, lump sum orders and pension sharing orders.

Ongoing maintenance orders would only be available in “exceptional circumstances”, such as serious health issues or disability, according to government proposals.

In those cases, maintenance must also only last for a “defined and limited duration, without possibility of extension”.

How does this differ from divorce?

One of the biggest differences is there would be no presumption of a 50-50 split. Each person would keep what they legally own by default, unless one of them can’t afford their needs.

These needs are defined more narrowly than on divorce by specifically excluding discretionary spending.

The courts would also be expected to put a heavier emphasis on a transition to independence. Maintenance payments would be available on a more limited basis than on divorce.

One principle the proposals share with divorce is that shorter relationships “will probably attract more limited awards”.

Read more:
The health supplement ‘wild west’ – do we need any of them?
Inside ‘extreme’ movement that could help you retire early
Unemployed Britons are being interviewed by AI robots

That is, the courts would be encouraged to distinguish between couples who only just meet the three-year threshold and those in longer relationships.

What do the experts think?

The changes have been welcomed by some of its intended beneficiaries, while the automatic opt-in system has come in for heavy criticism by a senior legal expert.

Most domestic abuse victims support giving cohabitants greater financial rights on separation, says Sam Smethers, chief executive of the charity Surviving Economic Abuse.

She called the government’s reforms a “once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the lives of victim-survivors”.

But Baroness Ruth Deech, a former law professor and chair of the Bar Standards Board, has called them a “profound constitutional change” with no mandate.

“Many people consciously choose not to remarry because they value both companionship and financial independence,” says Baroness Ruth Deech.

“They should remain free to make that choice, and the law should respect – not undermine – it.”

Rather than automatically imposing legal obligations on couples, she called for a voluntary opt-in system.