In the course of the next week, a Government consultation which could lead to a substantial reshaping of family law in England and Wales is due to close.

At the time that it was launched in early June, the objective, said the then Justice Secretary, David Lammy, was to bring about a “fairer end to relationships”.

The scope of the exercise is broad and intended to seek opinion about possible reform on a range of topics, including whether spouses’ conduct should influence the nature of divorce settlements and the potential to give pre- and post-nuptial agreements the full weight of law.

However, whilst legislation governing the financial remedy process for married couples has already been in place for more than half a century in the shape of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, one part of the current consultation may finally lead to the creation of a legal framework for an increasingly important group of family law clients.

As things stand, when unmarried couples without dependent children break up, they do so without being able to make claims for financial redress under family law, a situation which has been widely recognised as iniquitous.

Of course, society has changed considerably since the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 took effect.

In the early 1970s, cohabitation carried something of a stigma. Now, the situation is radically different. According to the latest figures made available by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), there more than 3.3 million cohabiting couples in England and Wales in 2025 – more than double the number at the turn of the century.

Without any family law provision besides the determination of maintenance for any children which they may have had together, cohabitees must resort to property law – and, particularly, the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 – to resolve disputes about their assets.

These proceedings, commonly known as ToLATA for short, can take anything from six to 18 months and, therefore, be costly as well as complex.

Exactly how costly can be gleaned from one of the most notable reported cases of a cohabitation dispute.

In April this year, Sir Anthony Mann handed down a judgement in a long-running row between two former unmarried partners, Kalaivani Kirishani and George Major.

He described how “the relationship was, at the beginning, a happy one which the parties hoped would end in marriage and perhaps children”, with Mr Major moving into Ms Kirishani’s flat early in their two-year relationship.

When they split in October 2018, she demanded that Mr Major pay her rent for the time that they lived together, almost £9,000 which she had given him to invest and his share of the money which she had spent on “holidays and trips” that they had taken.

The case had been heard first in County Court before being appealed to the High Court.

By the time that the matter came before Sir Anthony Mann, it concerned “effectively, what is now a sum of about £38,000 plus some interest”. However, he explained that “the [legal] costs now vastly exceed the sums at stake”.

For all of Ms Kirishani’s being meticulous in recording the sums that she had spent in a spreadsheet and discussions with Mr Major about what should be repaid, Sir Anthony concluded that “this was an informal arrangement which was not intended to be legally binding on the parties”.

Indeed, he noted that Ms Kirishani only became “insistent” on repayment after the couple broke up and dismissed her appeal against an unfavourable 2024 court judgement in relation to her demands.

The case, in my opinion, highlights more than just enormous financial risks associated with bringing a ToLATA claim.

It also underlines the practical benefits of following the lead of a growing number of unmarried couples and putting a cohabitation agreement in place before moving in together.

The agreements essentially set out who contributes what to a relationship in terms of property and finance, and what should happen if that partnership then breaks down.

Even relatively thorough cohabitation agreements can cost in the order of £5,000 plus VAT to be drawn up. Compare that to the final bill of £80,000 or so which Kalaivani Kirishani was left with after the failure of her High Court appeal.

On simple economic grounds, the value of cohabitation agreements surely speaks for itself.

Furthermore, my experience and that of my colleagues at Hall Brown Family Law is that more and more couples of all ages are adopting cohabitation agreements having seen friends and family subjected to immense financial and emotional turmoil following the end of their own cohabitations.

The end of any relationship can be a terribly upsetting time. Cohabitation agreements provide a measure of clarity and structure which can help avoid compounding that distress with rancour, disagreement and dispute.

There is another point which I believe is relevant.

Whilst we do not have figures for the number of cohabitations which break apart, we do know that many unmarried couples eventually wed.

In 2024, the ONS reported that 90 per cent of cohabitees went on to tie the knot – up almost one-third in 30 years.

Just as a commitment to move in together is, sadly, no guarantee that a relationship will endure, so marriage does not prevent divorce.

The kind of frank financial discussions important in the preparation of a cohabitation agreement are incredibly useful for those cohabitees who decide to marry.

As many cases have demonstrated, although pre-nups still do not have full legal weight, they are regarded as having persuasive weight when it comes to the division of married couples, thereby avoiding considerable friction, delay and expense.