24
Sept
No wedding, no 'common-law marriage' – what protection do cohabiting couples really have?
Sponsored
Ricky Gervais and his partner, Jane Fallon, have been together since 1982.
They have shared a home, a life and their finances for more than four decades, yet they have never married. Gervais has now said there is one thing that could finally persuade them to do so: inheritance tax.
It makes for a good headline, but behind it lies another important and topical question. If you build a life with someone but never marry, is it right that the law treats your relationship differently from that of a married couple?
Are we falling out of love with marriage?
The latest Office for National Statistics figures show that the proportion of adults who were married or in a civil partnership fell from 52.3% in 2015 to 51.1% in 2025.
Meanwhile, the proportion who had never married or entered a civil partnership increased from 32.6% to 34.9%.
Cohabitation is also growing. In 2025, 10.8% of adults were living with a partner without ever having married or formed a civil partnership, compared with 9.8% a decade earlier.
These statistics do not show a drastic shift, but they demonstrate a continuing gradual decline in the proportion of adults who are married or in a civil partnership.
What is the reason for the continuing decline?
A number of factors are likely to be contributing to the decline, rather than there being one simple answer.
The increasing cost of a wedding, the busyness of modern-day life and changing attitudes towards marriage generally are just a few of those factors.
Living together and having children before marriage are also no longer frowned upon and are increasingly the norm. Marriage is no longer the first step couples take to show their commitment to one another.
Despite this changing landscape, the law does not treat couples who live together, start families and remain together for the rest of their lives in the same way as married couples.
A lifetime together does not give you any further rights
There remains a widespread misconception surrounding “common-law marriage”. It does not exist in England and Wales.
You could live together for five years or, like Gervais and Fallon, for more than 40. You might own a home together or have lived for years in a property owned by your partner. You may raise children together and, in doing so, sacrifice your career. Given the nature of your relationship, you may generally regard everything you have as shared.
However, this does not change the reality that, without a piece of paper officially recognising your relationship, your rights on separation are limited. The position on death is also different from that of a married couple.
Should cohabiting couples have more rights?
This question is now firmly on the political agenda. Given that many countries have already implemented changes, this is a step in the right direction.
The Government has recently released its 2026 consultation, A Fairer End to Relationships, which is backed by Resolution, an organisation that has been campaigning for change for years.
The consultation looks in depth at the law affecting cohabiting couples and opportunities for change that could provide greater financial protection both on separation and on death.
There is no simple black-and-white answer, and there are many arguments for and against change, all of which need to be carefully considered. While change may be on the horizon, it has been decades in the making, and it is important that we get it right.
What about people who deliberately choose not to marry?
An important point to note is that, while many couples make a conscious decision not to marry, the reality is that a significant proportion do not understand the limitations of their rights on separation and death.
The changes being considered would not take away couples’ ability to make a conscious choice, as there is likely to be a “qualifying period” and an “opt-out” provision. This will be important, as there may be a number of reasons why someone wishes to retain their financial independence, whether because of a previous marriage, a desire to protect assets for children from an earlier relationship, familial wealth or otherwise.
People’s freedom of choice, autonomy and ability to make their own decisions must be protected. Having these options in place should enable couples to retain that freedom while ensuring that they make a fully informed decision, which will be particularly important for vulnerable parties.
Is marriage becoming a financial decision as well as a romantic one?
Perhaps Gervais’ comments capture something else about modern marriage.
For some long-term couples, marriage may become relevant not because their relationship has changed, but because their financial circumstances have and they need protection that is simply not available to unmarried couples.
Perhaps knowledge is the real issue
Whatever happens with cohabitation reform, people need to understand the consequences of the relationship they choose.
Marriage is not right for everyone, and cohabitation is not a lesser form of commitment. However, they are not treated in the same way legally, and this may have far-reaching consequences if there is no adequate understanding around this.
How can you protect yourself now?
While the consultation is a significant step in the right direction, there is still a long way to go.
In the intervening period, cohabiting couples can still make informed decisions about their finances, both during cohabitation and in the event of separation. These arrangements can be documented by way of a declaration of trust and a cohabitation agreement.
Obtaining advice on estate planning, including drafting a Will, is also advisable.
Cohabiting couples should take these steps to provide a degree of certainty in an otherwise uncertain landscape.
0