The Biggest Shake-Up of English Family Law in Over Two Decades?

On 5 June 2026 the government published a Consultation Document titled ‘A Fairer End to Relationships’. This consultation will close on 14 August 2026. If the proposed changes are later introduced into legislation, the practical implications for families (and family law practitioners alike) in England and Wales could be significant and will mark the biggest reform to family law in over 20 years.

In this article, we explore exactly what is being proposed.

Financial remedies on divorce and dissolution

Instead of case law principles and the discretionary application of the s 25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 factors, the government proposes a ‘codification-plus’ model for divorce and dissolution cases.

What does this mean?

The current law will remain intact, in that a fair outcome will remain the priority and the starting point will continue to be that matrimonial property should be shared equally unless unequal sharing is required to meet a party’s needs. These principles of ‘needs’ and ‘sharing’ will, however, now be codified, as will the definitions for ‘matrimonial’ and ‘non-matrimonial’ property.

Reform and further codification are also proposed in relation to unsettled areas of the law. It is proposed, for example, that a ‘compensation’ factor for relationship-suffered disadvantage be added to the list of s 25 factors and that ‘seamless cohabitation’ be codified with reference to a list of factors that judges can use to determine whether or not the relationship moved seamlessly from cohabitation to marriage.

Further, a three-stage approach is being proposed for assessing ‘needs’. The children’s needs would be considered first, followed by the parties’ housing, income and pension needs, and the third and final consideration would be discretionary needs, which are described in the Consultation as ‘lifestyle luxuries’. The benchmark for each stage will be the standard of living during the marriage and the resources available will be relevant. Factors such as illness or disability will also be relevant when assessing ‘needs’, whether or not they are directly linked to the marriage.

Finally, questions are posed by the Consultation as to how domestic abuse and misconduct should be factored into financial remedy proceedings, but as yet there are no specifically proposed reforms in this area.

Pre- and post-nuptial agreements

Instead of the Radmacher v Granatino test for pre- and post-nuptial agreements, the government is proposing to broadly adopt the recommendations in the Law Commission’s 2014 report on Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements (which included a Draft Nuptial Agreements Bill), and make qualifying nuptial agreements, executed as deeds, legally binding under contract law provided certain safeguards are met.

The proposed safeguards for these agreements include the absence of undue influence or misrepresentation, the provision of financial disclosure and independent legal advice for both parties. The agreement must also meet the capital, income and pension needs (albeit narrowly assessed) of the economically weaker party. If it does not, the court will retain jurisdiction to redress this imbalance with reference to the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage.

Law for cohabitants on separation

Instead of property law claims based on legal title and beneficial interest, maintenance claims being limited to provision for the children and cohabitation agreements that are binding only as a matter of contract law if properly drafted and executed, the government is proposing certain qualifying criteria which would give the court the ability to make orders on the breakdown of a cohabiting relationship that are similar to (albeit more limited than) those available on divorce.

It is proposed that any orders made should be ‘needs’ based with reference to a checklist of factors that the court must consider, similar to the s 25 factors which are considered on divorce. In stark distinction to divorce cases, however, discretionary needs will not be considered and the ‘sharing’ principle will not apply.

The definition of cohabitants will be limited to relationships where two people (over the age of 18) ‘are living together as a couple in an enduring family relationship’. It is proposed that there will be a checklist of factors to assess whether a couple satisfies this definition which will range from the existence of a joint household to responsibility for children. Satisfying this definition will not automatically entitle cohabitants to make a claim. Further eligibility criteria are proposed which include a minimum cohabitation period of three years (save where there is a child of the family, in which case no minimum duration requirement will apply) and a two-year limitation period for bringing a claim.

Where all criteria are met, claims will be made via the Family Court and it is proposed that a broad set of remedies will be available equivalent to those available on divorce (noting here that no reforms are currently proposed to the remedies available on divorce). Maintenance payments, however, will only be available in exceptional circumstances, for example where there are serious health issues or disability, and any orders made will be time limited without the possibility of extension.

The default position will be that all qualifying cohabitants are covered by this framework. Couples will have the ability to mutually opt out via contract if they so choose provided certain safeguards, such as financial disclosure and independent legal advice, are met. In such circumstances, cohabitants would still be eligible to make claims under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, which is the legislation that currently governs property disputes between unmarried couples.

Maintenance claims via the Child Maintenance Service and applications for provision for a child under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 will also remain untouched by the reforms and are therefore available to cohabitants who either do not meet the proposed criteria or have opted out of the framework.

Law for cohabitants on intestacy

Instead of provision being made only by Will or via a claim for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, the government is proposing that qualifying cohabitants be treated in the same way as spouses or civil partners under the intestacy rules and have equal standing to apply for a Grant of Letters of Administration.

The proposed definition for identifying qualifying cohabitants is ‘marriage-equivalence’ and it is proposed that this be assessed holistically with reference to a range of factors including, but not limited to, shared residence and mutual commitment. The additional criteria of a minimum duration for the cohabiting relationship is also being considered.

The proposed reforms can only be described as an overhaul of the current system. The government’s rationale for this is that family law is overly complex, does not go far enough to protect children and the vulnerable and is generally outdated. The exact phrase used in the Consultation Document is that these reforms will bring ‘the law into the 21st century’.

The government’s hope is that these reforms will lead to clearer, more predictable outcomes for modern families, which will in turn reduce conflict and narrow the scope of litigation risk – all whilst preserving the distinct status of marriage.

There is of course tremendous value in these objectives, but we cannot help but wonder whether some of the proposed reforms, such as ‘compensation’ as a s 25 factor, will simply introduce new ambiguities to the ones already at play and why some areas of law which are in desperate need of updating, such as adoption and surrogacy law, have been left out of the consultation altogether.

Looking ahead, the timeline post consultation is unclear. What is clear though, is that the legislation of any one of the proposed reforms will mark an important change in family law history.