There is no such thing as common law marriage in England and Wales. However long a couple have lived together, and whether or not they have children, cohabitation does not give them the same financial rights as a married couple or civil partners. The Government consulted in 2026 on possible reform, but the law has not yet changed.
If you separate
The key point is that the court does not simply divide assets according to what is fair. There is no general claim for maintenance for a former cohabiting partner, no pension sharing and no matrimonial sharing principle. The main dispute is often about the home, and that is essentially an ownership dispute.
If the home is in joint names
Where a home is owned jointly and there is no express declaration of unequal shares, the starting point is equal beneficial ownership. That starting point can sometimes be displaced, but the court is concerned with the parties’ common intention, not simply with who paid more.
In Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, Lady Hale identified a number of factors which may help the court decide what the parties intended, including:
what was said when the property was bought;
why it was put into joint names;
who provided the deposit;
how the mortgage was paid;
whether finances were kept separate or pooled;
how household expenses were dealt with; and
whether the parties’ arrangements changed over time.
These are not a mechanical checklist. The court looks at the whole course of dealing. Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 also confirms that a couple’s intentions about ownership can change during the relationship.
If the home is in one name only
This is more difficult. The person who is not on the legal title has to establish a beneficial interest, usually through a common intention constructive trust.
Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107 remains important. Broadly, a claim can arise in two ways:
There was an actual agreement, arrangement or understanding that the person who was not on the title would have an interest, followed by detrimental reliance.
A shared intention can be inferred from the parties’ conduct.
The first route remains good law.
The second needs to be read in light of later cases. Rosset placed very heavy emphasis on direct contributions to the purchase price or mortgage. Later authority, particularly Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott, has moved away from treating those contributions as the only possible route to an inferred intention.
That does not mean ordinary household contributions create an interest in property. Paying bills, buying food or simply living together for many years will not, without more, give someone a share of a house.
The real question is whether the evidence shows a shared intention that both were to have a beneficial interest, together with reliance on that intention.
Evidence matters
In most TOLATA cases, the documents and contemporaneous evidence are critical.
That may include:
the transfer and any declaration of trust;
evidence of the deposit;
mortgage payments;
emails and messages about ownership;
refinancing;
major expenditure on the property; and
evidence showing how the parties actually arranged their finances.
A written declaration of trust is usually far more valuable than trying to reconstruct conversations and intentions years later.
Be careful what you agree in writing
Informal emails and messages can have serious consequences.
In Hudson v Hathway [2022] EWCA Civ 1648, an email exchange was sufficient to dispose of a beneficial interest in property.
A separating couple should therefore be very careful before agreeing in writing that one person can have the property or the other person’s share.
What if there are children?
Children do not automatically create a property interest for either parent.
There may, however, be separate claims for financial provision for a child under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989. In appropriate cases, that can include housing provision.
That is provision for the child, not a redistribution of property between former partners.
If your partner dies
An unmarried partner does not automatically inherit under the intestacy rules. That makes wills particularly important.
There may be a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, but that is not the same as the rights of a surviving spouse and there are strict time limits.
How the home is owned is also important. If it is held as beneficial joint tenants, the survivor normally receives the deceased’s interest automatically. If it is held as tenants in common, the deceased’s share passes under the will or intestacy.
Practical protection
a declaration of trust recording respective shares;
wills;
a cohabitation agreement;
pension nominations;
life insurance; and
lasting powers of attorney.
The cheapest dispute is usually the one avoided by recording intentions clearly while the relationship is still good.
This article provides general information about the law of England and Wales and was reviewed in September 2026. It is not legal advice. Individual cases turn heavily on the ownership documents and the evidence of what the parties actually intended.
The best time to agree who owns what is when the property is purchased or transferred.
The problem is that this is usually when the relationship is at its happiest. You are choosing kitchens, planning holidays, arguing over paint colours and gazing lovingly into each other’s eyes. It does not feel like the moment to say, “Just in case one day we cannot stand the sight of each other, shall we record who owns what?”
So instead, someone says, “I would never do that to you.”
In cohabitation law, that sentence can be remarkably expensive. People change. Relationships change. Memories of what was agreed can become astonishingly flexible.
A declaration of trust may not be romantic, but neither is spending tens of thousands of pounds asking a judge what you both meant 12 years ago.