Over the years, many commentators have observed how, as the world turns, so too do the views of those in it.

For confirmation, one needs only cast an eye to the way in which families are formed – and, sadly, break down.

Not too long ago, two people living together without marrying would prompt a considerable amount of tut-tutting. Cohabitation was referred to, quite indelicately, as “living in sin”.

Now, though, it has no such stigma attached and the numbers of those who choose to form relationships in this way demonstrate their emphasis on what is right for them rather than any lingering societal objection.

The latest figures published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that there were over 3.3 million cohabiting couples in England and Wales last year – more than double the number at the turn of the century.

Of course, regardless of the many personal or principled reasons why individuals cohabit, it carries no greater guarantee than marriage of overcoming the various challenges with which families are confronted.

However, whereas spouses have a framework to determine how they untangle their assets when they separate in order to avoid inequity or unfairness on divorce, cohabitees have no such protection.

If they do not have dependent children, they often have to resort to property law – namely, the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 – to try and justify why they should receive anything from their ex. Even then, that protection is limited to a potential claim against an owned property.

It is a situation which has long caused cohabitees, family lawyers and politicians anxiety, concerns which have only grown more acute as the number of unmarried couples has increased.

Four years ago, the House of Commons’ Women and Equalities Committee called for urgent legal reform.

While observing that the law applicable to the collapse of cohabitations could be “costly, complicated and unfair”, it also noted that it was “staggering that so many people in England and Wales believe in the common law marriage myth”.

Committee members agreed that “this misplaced belief…can have profound consequences for cohabiting partners—many of whom do not realise the reality of their situation until it is too late”.

My experience and that of my Hall Brown Family Law colleagues has shown me just how true that conclusion is.

One of my previous clients – a woman in her fifties with adult children and no real assets of her own – left a 30-year relationship believing that she would be able to make a claim against her former partner for financial remedy as a “common law spouse”, only to discover that was not the case.

The Women and Equalities Committee urged ministers to adopt the recommendations made in 2007 in a report on the issue produced by the Law Commission.

It had proposed allowing “eligible” cohabitees to make a claim based not just on financial contribution which they had made but “any contribution arising from the cohabiting relationship”, including caring for children which a couple might have had.

Those suggestions were neither taken up by the government of the day nor any administration since, even if the lobbying for something to be done has continued unabated.

So, you can imagine how interest was piqued in March when the former Justice minister Alex Davies-Jones outlined plans for a consultation on whether to introduce cohabitee rights’ law.

Last week, the Justice Secretary, David Lammy, launched that very exercise, explaining that reform would be “designed to shape future law and better reflect modern society”.

The 10-week consultation will allow the public, legal professionals and academics among others to express their views on what is a three-pronged package of ideas.

Following on from another Law Commission report – one released in December 2024 on whether legislation relating to financial remedy on divorce needed to be updated – the new consultation will seek opinions on making nuptial contracts legally binding.

The remaining two parts are intended to provide separating and bereaved cohabitees with a “distinct and different set of rights” financial rights, whilst “helping to preserve the sanctity of marriage”.

It is a development which I believe will be widely welcomed, offering the weaker financial party in a cohabitation the promise of clarity and financial support with which to rebuild their lives.

Yet there is one area in the Government’s proposals which I feel will spur much debate; namely, the suggestion that survivors of domestic abuse – whether spouses or cohabitees -will be given “better financial protections” when they leave relationships.

Whilst I believe that support for victims of abuse, be it physical or coercive and controlling behaviour, is essential, I wonder whether it could lead to the need for allegations of such misconduct to be tested in court as a means to a financial end.

If that is the case, it could mean reintroducing an element of conflict to proceedings which the ‘no-fault’ divorce law that came into force in 2022 aimed to remove.

Individuals who go to court will need to consider the length of time which it takes for litigated cases to reach a conclusion as well as the discretion afforded to family court judges to determine financial settlements based on the evidence of the cases before them.

Given all that, I would like to think that couples will opt to take matters into their own hands and settle any disputes using Non-Court Dispute Resolution (NCDR) methods, such as mediation or arbitration, or use other means to try and prevent difficulties arising in the first place.

As one national newspaper columnist has already remarked following Mr Lammy’s consultation announcement, cohabitation agreements allow cohabitees to regulate their relationships.

Those agreements are, in my opinion, entirely sensible, dynamic documents and can be updated to take account of the changes (such as children, promotion, inheritance) which often happen during a couple’s time together.

Better that, I think, than leaving it to chance or litigation, even if the prospect of legal reform is an advance on what is currently in place.