Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

Diversity and Inclusion in Benefits: Estate Planning for LGBTQ+ and Non-Traditional Families

· 20 min

Executive Summary

Standard employer-provided estate planning benefits -- death benefit nomination forms, pension beneficiary designations, and will-writing referrals -- are typically structured around the assumption of a married heterosexual household with biological children. ONS data identifies 3.5 million cohabiting couple families in the UK, representing 17.7% of all families, with same-sex cohabiting couples comprising 4.2% of all cohabiting partnerships.1 Under the Administration of Estates Act 1925 (section 46), unmarried cohabiting partners inherit nothing on intestacy, and under IHTA 1984 section 18, they cannot access the spousal IHT exemption.23 From April 2027, the inclusion of unused pension funds in IHT estates amplifies these inequities: married employees' pension wealth passes to their partner tax-free, while unmarried employees' pension death benefits increase the chargeable estate without spousal exemption protection.4 D&I specialists and benefits managers who audit and redesign benefits architecture for inclusivity address measurable legal risk, not merely cultural sensitivity.

1. The Diversity Gap in Benefits Design

The UK workforce encompasses a materially broader range of family structures than employer benefits programmes typically accommodate. ONS Families and Households data for 2024 records 3.5 million cohabiting couple families (17.7% of all 19.7 million families), an increase from 3.1 million (16.4%) in 2014.1 Same-sex cohabiting couples account for 4.2% of all cohabiting partnerships, up from 2.7% a decade earlier.1 Civil-partnered couple families have more than tripled from 61,000 in 2014 to 200,000 in 2024, yet this growth represents just 1.0% of all families.1 Meanwhile, lone-parent families total 3.2 million (16.1%), with 16.7% headed by lone fathers, up from 13.1% in 2014.1 Census 2021 data confirms that 24.3% of couples were cohabiting, and a significant proportion of same-sex couples remain in cohabiting rather than formalised legal relationships.5

These demographic realities interact with a benefits architecture that defaults to assumptions about married heterosexual households. Expression of wish forms for pension death benefits and group life insurance nomination forms typically present categories -- "spouse," "children," "next of kin" -- that align with traditional family structures but may not adequately accommodate same-sex partners, step-children, children from surrogacy or assisted reproduction, or co-parenting arrangements. Benefits communications, financial wellbeing programmes, and will-writing referral services similarly tend to assume that the recipient's family structure maps onto the married-with-biological-children model.

The consequence is not merely one of representation. Employees in non-traditional family structures face quantifiably different legal and financial risks from those in marriages or civil partnerships. Under current intestacy law, succession law, and tax legislation, an unmarried cohabiting partner -- regardless of relationship duration -- occupies a fundamentally different legal position from a spouse or civil partner. The default outcomes from employer-provided benefits (intestacy distributions, trustee discretion on death benefit payments, tax charges on inherited assets) work against the interests of these employees in ways that benefits communications rarely explain.

The scale of this gap is compounded by identity concealment in the workplace. Stonewall's LGBT in Britain Work Report (2018), based on YouGov research with 3,213 LGBT employees, found that 35% of LGBT staff hid or disguised that they are LGBT at work due to fear of discrimination, with 38% of bisexual employees entirely closeted at work.6 More recent Stonewall research published in January 2025 found that 39% of LGBTQ+ employees still hide their identity at work, with 26% experiencing negative conduct from customers or clients because of their identity and 36% hearing discriminatory remarks about LGBTQ+ colleagues.7 The 2025 findings are drawn from a separate research exercise rather than a direct replication of the 2018 Work Report methodology, and the full report does not disclose sample size; the two datasets should therefore be read as broadly consistent indicators of a persistent problem rather than a precise longitudinal comparison. CIPD Inclusion at Work research corroborates this pattern: 40% of LGB+ workers and 55% of trans workers experienced workplace conflict, compared with 29% of heterosexual, cisgender employees, while 16% of LGB+ workers and 18% of trans workers felt psychologically unsafe.8 Employees who conceal their family structures are unlikely to raise concerns about benefits design, query the implications of their nomination forms, or engage with financial wellbeing communications that assume a traditional family model. Inclusive benefits design must therefore be proactive, not dependent on employees self-identifying vulnerabilities.

The CIPD's Resetting EDI and Reaffirming Inclusion report, published in May 2025, reinforces this imperative. Based on interviews with 50 senior HR leaders and EDI specialists, the report identifies eight focus areas for effective inclusion practice, including embedding EDI into core people processes -- specifically reward and benefits design -- rather than treating it as a standalone programme.9 Yet only 23% of organisations train managers in fair and inclusive people management.9 Benefits architecture represents an operational domain where the gap between stated D&I commitments and practical delivery is both measurable and remediable.

Three intersecting areas of law create differential outcomes for employees in non-traditional family structures. D&I specialists need not become estate planning practitioners, but understanding the structural legal risks is essential for designing benefits that serve all employees equitably.

2.1 Intestacy: The Cohabiting Partner Exclusion

Under the Administration of Estates Act 1925 (section 46, as amended), when an individual dies without a valid will, the surviving spouse or civil partner receives all personal chattels, a statutory legacy of GBP 322,000 (from 26 July 2023, per the Administration of Estates Act 1925 (Fixed Net Sum) Order 2023, SI 2023/758), and at least half the residuary estate where there are children.2 If there are no children, the spouse or civil partner inherits the entire estate.2

Unmarried cohabiting partners receive nothing under intestacy rules, regardless of the duration of the relationship, the degree of financial interdependence, or the existence of shared children.2 This exclusion applies equally to opposite-sex and same-sex cohabiting couples who have not formalised their relationship through marriage or civil partnership.

The sole statutory recourse for a cohabiting partner excluded by intestacy is the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Section 1(1)(ba) permits a claim by a person who lived in the same household as the deceased "as the husband or wife" or "as the civil partner" of the deceased for the whole of the period of two years ending immediately before the death.10 This provision requires continuous cohabitation for the full two-year period preceding death, is discretionary rather than automatic, and requires court proceedings. Critically, for applicants other than spouses and civil partners, section 1(2)(b) of the 1975 Act limits the court to ordering provision "for maintenance" only -- a significantly lower standard than the "reasonable provision" available to spouses and civil partners under section 1(2)(a).10 The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 offers a claim route, not an entitlement. The difference between an automatic right under intestacy and a discretionary court application with a maintenance ceiling is material.

With 56% of UK adults lacking a will and 67% either without a will or holding one that is out of date, the practical probability that a cohabiting employee's partner will face intestacy outcomes is substantial.11 LGBTQ+-specific will ownership rates are not separately reported in major UK surveys, making the precise prevalence of intestacy risk among LGBTQ+ employees unknown; the general population statistics should be read as indicative rather than directly applicable to this cohort.

2.2 IHT Spousal Exemption: A Tax Penalty for Unmarried Partners

IHTA 1984 section 18 provides an unlimited exemption from inheritance tax for transfers between spouses and civil partners, applying both on death and during lifetime.3 Unmarried cohabiting partners cannot access this exemption regardless of the nature, duration, or financial substance of their relationship.3

The financial consequence is quantifiable. On an estate valued at GBP 500,000, a surviving unmarried partner faces potential IHT of GBP 70,000 (40% on the excess above the GBP 325,000 nil-rate band), whereas a married or civil-partnered surviving partner inherits the entire estate free of IHT.3 Where the deceased was also entitled to the residence nil-rate band (GBP 175,000) and left a qualifying residential property to direct descendants, the effective nil-rate threshold can reach GBP 500,000, but this additional allowance is available only where the estate passes to direct descendants, not to a surviving partner.

Marriage and civil partnership confer identical protections for these purposes. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 enabled same-sex marriage in England and Wales from 13 March 2014.12 The Civil Partnership Act 2004 provided civil partnerships for same-sex couples from December 2005, and the Civil Partnership (Opposite-sex Couples) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/1458) extended civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples from 2 December 2019.12 Both routes to formalisation deliver full IHT, CGT, and intestacy protections. The key D&I consideration is that formalisation is a choice, not a default, and employees may have principled, cultural, religious, or practical reasons for not marrying or entering a civil partnership. Benefits design should not assume that formalisation is either inevitable or desirable for all employees.

2.3 Prospective Reform: Cohabitation Consultation

The Government announced in a House of Lords debate on 10 November 2025 that it will launch a consultation in Spring 2026 on financial remedies on divorce, civil partnership dissolution, and cohabitation, including the possibility of enhanced legal rights for long-term cohabitants.13 This consultation may in time address the intestacy exclusion and the absence of financial remedies for cohabiting partners on relationship breakdown. Any legislative changes would, however, require primary legislation and take years to implement. As of February 2026, the current legal position remains unchanged: cohabiting partners have no automatic inheritance rights and no access to the spousal IHT exemption. D&I specialists should plan on the basis of existing law while monitoring the consultation's progress.

3. April 2027 Pension Changes and Diverse Families

3.1 The Reform and Its Differential Impact

From 6 April 2027, most unused pension funds and death benefits will be included in the deceased's estate for IHT purposes.4 These provisions are contained in the Finance (No. 2) Bill 2024-26, which is progressing through Parliament and had not received Royal Assent as of February 2026; the government's commitment following the October 2025 consultation outcome is firm and the provisions are expected to take effect as announced, but benefits managers should note that the legislation is not yet enacted.4 Personal representatives -- not pension scheme administrators -- bear liability for reporting and paying the resultant IHT.4 The government's impact assessment estimates that 10,500 estates will become newly liable for IHT and 38,500 estates will pay increased IHT as a result, from approximately 213,000 estates with inheritable pension wealth in 2027-28.14

The critical element for diverse families is the maintenance of the spousal and civil partner IHT exemption. Pension death benefits passing to a spouse or civil partner remain exempt from IHT under IHTA 1984 section 18.4 Pension death benefits directed to an unmarried cohabiting partner, however, increase the chargeable estate without the protection of the spousal exemption.4 The combined effect is that employees in marriages or civil partnerships can pass pension wealth to their partner entirely free of IHT, while unmarried employees' pension death benefits directed to a cohabiting partner are chargeable at 40% above the nil-rate band.

Death-in-service benefits from registered pension schemes remain explicitly excluded from the April 2027 IHT scope, providing continued tax-free treatment regardless of the beneficiary's relationship status.4 This distinction between death-in-service benefits (excluded) and accumulated pension funds (included) is operationally significant for benefits communication.

3.2 Auto-Enrolment and the Awareness Gap

Employers who auto-enrol employees and encourage additional voluntary contributions bear a practical responsibility to ensure that all employees understand the changed tax consequences of pension death benefits. For employees in non-traditional family structures, the implications are more severe: their pension savings, far from being a tax-efficient wealth transfer vehicle, may generate a substantial IHT liability that their intended beneficiary cannot offset through spousal exemption.

The Pension IHT Payments Scheme permits personal representatives to direct scheme administrators to withhold up to 50% of the deceased's pension death benefits for up to 15 months to facilitate IHT payment.4 This mechanism, while providing administrative flexibility, does not address the underlying disparity: married and civil-partnered employees' pension wealth transfers are exempt, while unmarried employees' transfers are chargeable. Benefits communications that explain the April 2027 changes without addressing this differential outcome are, in effect, providing incomplete information to employees who face the greatest risk.

4. Redesigning Benefits for Inclusion: A Practical Framework

The legal and fiscal framework described above identifies specific, quantifiable disadvantages facing employees in non-traditional family structures. The following interventions translate those risks into actionable programme design for D&I specialists and benefits managers.

4.1 Auditing Nomination Processes

Expression of wish forms for pension death benefits are typically paid at the discretion of scheme trustees, with the nomination form guiding but not binding the trustee's decision.15 For employees in non-traditional families, the quality of the nomination is critical: cohabiting partners may or may not be recognised as dependants depending on scheme rules, and older defined benefit schemes in particular may use narrow dependant definitions that exclude cohabiting partners.15

A benefits inclusivity audit should address four elements. First, the language of nomination forms: whether they accommodate diverse family structures including same-sex partners, step-children, and children from surrogacy or assisted reproduction, or default to "spouse" and "children" categories that may discourage employees from nominating the intended beneficiary. Second, dependant definitions in scheme rules: whether the scheme's definition of "dependant" or "financial dependant" is broad enough to encompass cohabiting partners and, if not, whether the scheme rules can be amended. Third, completion rates: what proportion of the workforce has a current nomination on file, and whether completion data can be disaggregated to identify cohorts with low engagement. Fourth, review frequency: whether nomination review is prompted annually and at life events (formation of a new relationship, birth or adoption of a child, dissolution of a marriage or civil partnership), or left to employee initiative.

This audit carries minimal cost -- it involves reviewing existing documentation and processes, not procuring new services -- yet addresses a risk that is both legally substantive and operationally manageable.

4.2 Structured Nomination Review Campaigns

Annual nomination review campaigns, supplemented by life-event triggers integrated into HR systems, represent the lowest-cost, highest-impact intervention available. An employee who entered a same-sex cohabiting relationship after completing their initial nomination form may have an outdated or absent nomination on file. An employee who has transitioned and changed their legal name may hold a nomination in a former name. A divorced employee whose nomination still reflects a former spouse creates a governance risk for scheme trustees.

Effective campaigns frame the review as universal -- applicable to all employees, not targeted at specific identity groups -- while providing sufficient contextual information for employees in non-traditional families to recognise that their circumstances may require particular attention. The campaign communication should explain that expression of wish forms guide but do not bind trustees, that scheme rules define who qualifies as a dependant, and that employees in cohabiting relationships should consider whether their partner's legal standing is reflected in their nomination.

4.3 Estate Planning Education Within the Guidance Boundary

Employers providing estate planning education must operate within the regulatory perimeter separating guidance from regulated financial advice. Within that boundary, employers can communicate factual information about the legal consequences of intestacy (the cohabiting partner exclusion under AEA 1925 section 46), the IHT implications of unmarried status (the non-availability of section 18 spousal exemption), and the April 2027 pension death benefit changes.234

Inclusive estate planning education should be explicit about the differential outcomes facing employees in different family structures. Generic communications stating that "all employees should consider making a will" are technically accurate but fail to convey the qualitative difference in legal risk: for a married employee, intestacy produces a broadly reasonable outcome; for a cohabiting employee, intestacy produces an outcome where the surviving partner inherits nothing.2 The educational content should make this distinction visible and direct employees toward professional will-writing services that have specific competence in advising diverse families.

4.4 Partnering With Inclusive Will-Writing Services

Employer-provided will-writing services or referral arrangements should be assessed for their capacity to advise on the specific legal vulnerabilities of non-traditional families. Practitioners with experience of LGBTQ+ estate planning, assisted reproduction and surrogacy, blended families, and cross-border dimensions are better positioned to produce wills that address guardianship appointments for non-biological parents, trust structures that mitigate IHT exposure for cohabiting partners, and testamentary provisions that reflect the complexity of modern family arrangements.

4.5 Reviewing Pension Scheme Dependant Definitions

Pension scheme dependant definitions vary materially between providers and scheme types. Modern defined contribution auto-enrolment schemes (such as NEST and The People's Pension) generally adopt broad dependant definitions that can encompass cohabiting partners.15 Older defined benefit schemes, however, may use narrow definitions tied to marriage, civil partnership, or formal financial dependency. Benefits managers should review the dependant definitions in each relevant scheme and, where the definition is restrictive, engage with trustees or providers to explore amendment. An employee who has nominated a cohabiting partner in an expression of wish form may find that the scheme rules do not recognise the partner as a beneficiary eligible for payment, regardless of the nomination.

5. Parental Responsibility, Guardianship, and Non-Biological Parents

Families formed through assisted reproduction, surrogacy, or blended relationships face estate planning complexity that generic benefits communications do not address. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 establishes the framework for legal parenthood of children born through fertility treatment. Section 42 provides that where the mother is married to or in a civil partnership with a woman at the time of treatment, the partner is the child's legal parent from birth (unless the partner did not consent).16 Section 43 provides that where the mother is unmarried, "agreed female parenthood conditions" must be met at a licensed clinic for the partner to acquire legal parenthood.16

Where treatment occurs outside a licensed clinic -- for example, through home insemination -- section 43 provisions do not apply, and the non-biological parent is not automatically a legal parent.16 Parental responsibility must then be obtained through alternative routes under the Children Act 1989: a parental responsibility agreement, a court order, or adoption.17 Step-parents in blended families face similar requirements.

The estate planning implications are direct. Guardianship appointments in wills can only be made by a person with parental responsibility at the time of their death.17 Death benefit nominations and life insurance beneficiary designations should reflect the specific legal parenthood status of the intended recipients. An employee who is the non-biological parent of a child conceived through home insemination, and who has not obtained parental responsibility, cannot appoint a testamentary guardian for that child. Benefits communications that encourage employees to "name your children as beneficiaries" or "appoint a guardian in your will" without acknowledging these distinctions provide incomplete guidance to employees whose family structures do not fit the default model.

Transgender employees face additional documentation considerations. Name changes resulting from transition should be reflected in nomination forms, pension records, and beneficiary designations. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 enables transgender individuals to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate, which changes their legal sex and may affect their marriage or civil partnership status. The CIPD's guidance on supporting transgender and non-binary people at work, updated following the Supreme Court's ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, recommends that employers review policies including benefits and family-related provisions to ensure transgender inclusion.18 Benefits managers should ensure that administrative processes for updating nominations and records are straightforward and do not require employees to disclose their transgender status more broadly than necessary.

6. The Equality Act 2010 and Inclusive Benefits Obligations

The Equality Act 2010 establishes sexual orientation (section 12) and gender reassignment (section 7) as protected characteristics.19 Employers cannot discriminate in benefits provision on grounds of sexual orientation or gender reassignment. The public sector equality duty (section 149) requires public-sector employers to have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity, and fostering good relations between different groups.19

The Equality Act does not, however, mandate that employers proactively design benefits to accommodate the specific legal vulnerabilities of non-traditional families. The intestacy exclusion of cohabiting partners is a feature of succession law, not employment discrimination. The IHT spousal exemption is a tax provision, not an employer benefit. The Equality Act framework nonetheless provides a basis for inclusive benefits practice: employers committed to advancing equality of opportunity should consider whether their benefits architecture -- its language, its default assumptions, its communication strategy, and the adequacy of the information it provides to employees in diverse family structures -- achieves equitable outcomes across the workforce.

Private-sector employers are not bound by the public sector equality duty, but organisations with established D&I strategies increasingly apply equivalent principles voluntarily. The CIPD Resetting EDI report's emphasis on embedding EDI into reward and benefits design is consistent with this approach: genuine inclusion requires that benefits provision is assessed for equitable outcomes, not merely for the absence of direct discrimination.9

Conclusion

The legal framework governing intestacy, inheritance tax, parental responsibility, and pension death benefits creates measurably different outcomes for employees depending on their family structure. Married and civil-partnered employees benefit from automatic intestacy rights, unlimited IHT spousal exemption, and tax-free pension wealth transfer from April 2027. Cohabiting employees -- including a substantial proportion of LGBTQ+ employees who have not formalised their relationships -- inherit nothing on intestacy, face a 40% IHT charge on assets above the nil-rate band, and from April 2027 will see their pension death benefits increase the chargeable estate without spousal exemption protection.

These differential outcomes are not abstract legal distinctions. They determine whether an employee's surviving partner retains the family home, whether a pension fund built over a working lifetime transfers to the intended beneficiary or is substantially reduced by taxation, and whether children in non-biological parenting arrangements are protected by testamentary guardianship. D&I specialists and benefits managers who audit nomination processes, review scheme dependant definitions, deliver factually accurate estate planning education, and partner with inclusive will-writing providers address a structural inequity that exists at the intersection of employment law, succession law, and tax legislation. The April 2027 pension changes provide the catalyst; the professional imperative, grounded in CIPD best practice and Equality Act principles, extends well beyond it.

CPD Declaration

Estimated Reading Time: 20 minutes Technical Level: Advanced Practice Areas: Diversity and Inclusion, Employee Benefits, Estate Planning Integration, Pension Administration

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Identify the three principal legal gaps -- intestacy exclusion, IHT spousal exemption, and limited recourse under I(PFD)A 1975 -- that create differential estate planning outcomes for employees in non-traditional family structures
  2. Analyse how the April 2027 inclusion of unused pension funds in IHT estates disproportionately affects unmarried employees whose intended beneficiaries cannot access the spousal exemption
  3. Apply a practical audit framework to evaluate expression of wish forms, pension scheme dependant definitions, and nomination processes for inclusivity across diverse family structures
  4. Evaluate the adequacy of employer estate planning communications in conveying the qualitative difference in legal risk between married or civil-partnered and cohabiting employees

CIPD Competency Mapping

  • Core Knowledge: Reward and benefits design (inclusive practice)
  • Core Behaviour: Valuing people and embedding EDI into core people processes
  • Specialist Knowledge: Employment law (Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics), pensions administration, financial wellbeing

Reflective Questions

  1. How would you assess whether your organisation's expression of wish forms and death benefit nomination processes adequately accommodate the range of family structures represented in your workforce?
  2. What changes to your financial wellbeing communications would be necessary to ensure employees in cohabiting relationships understand their differential legal position under intestacy and IHT rules?
  3. How might the April 2027 pension death benefit changes affect the relative value of your employer pension provision for married versus unmarried employees, and what communication strategy would address this disparity?

Professional Disclaimer

The information presented reflects the regulatory and legislative position as of 2026-02-26. Regulations, tax rules, and professional guidance are subject to change. Readers should independently verify all information before acting and seek advice from appropriately qualified solicitors, financial advisors, or other professionals for their specific circumstances.

Neither WUHLD nor the author accepts liability for any actions taken or decisions made based on the content of this article. Professional readers are reminded of their own regulatory obligations and duty of care to their clients.

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. ONS -- Families and Households in the UK: 2024 (July 2025). https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2024 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  2. Administration of Estates Act 1925, section 46 (as amended); The Administration of Estates Act 1925 (Fixed Net Sum) Order 2023 (SI 2023/758). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/23/section/46 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  3. Inheritance Tax Act 1984, section 18. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/51/section/18 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  4. GOV.UK -- Inheritance Tax: Unused Pension Funds and Death Benefits (policy paper, October 2024); IHT on Pensions: Liability, Reporting and Payment (consultation outcome, October 2025). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inheritance-tax-unused-pension-funds-and-death-benefits/inheritance-tax-unused-pension-funds-and-death-benefits ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9

  5. ONS -- People's Living Arrangements in England and Wales: Census 2021. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinternetandsocialmediausage/articles/livingarrangementsofpeopleinenglandandwales/census2021 ↩

  6. Stonewall -- LGBT in Britain Work Report (2018). https://www.stonewall.org.uk/resources/lgbt-britain-work-report-2018 ↩

  7. Stonewall -- New Research Shows Almost 40% of LGBTQ+ Employees Still Hide Their Identity at Work (January 2025). https://www.stonewall.org.uk/news/new-research-shows-almost-40-of-lgbtq-employees-still-hide-their-identity-at-work ↩

  8. CIPD -- Inclusion at Work 2022. https://www.cipd.org/en/knowledge/reports/inclusion-work/ ↩

  9. CIPD -- Resetting EDI and Reaffirming Inclusion (May 2025). https://www.cipd.org/en/knowledge/reports/resetting-edi-reaffirming-inclusion/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  10. Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, sections 1(1)(ba) and 1(2)(b). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/63/section/1 ↩ ↩2

  11. UK Wills and Probate Consumer Research Report 2025 (November 2025). https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/11/07/3183474/28124/en/UK-Wills-Probate-Consumer-Research-Report-2025 ↩

  12. Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013; Civil Partnership Act 2004; The Civil Partnership (Opposite-sex Couples) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/1458). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/30 ↩ ↩2

  13. Law Gazette -- Government to consult on cohabitation reform (November 2025). https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/government-to-consult-on-cohabitation-reform/5122462.article ↩

  14. GOV.UK -- Inheritance Tax: Unused Pension Funds and Death Benefits (impact assessment). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inheritance-tax-unused-pension-funds-and-death-benefits/inheritance-tax-unused-pension-funds-and-death-benefits ↩

  15. Royal London for Advisers -- Death Benefits: Nominate a Beneficiary. https://adviser.royallondon.com/technical-central/pensions/death-benefits/death-benefits-discretion-and-how-to-nominate-a-beneficiary/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  16. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, sections 42-43. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/22/part/2 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  17. Children Act 1989, section 2 (parental responsibility). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/2 ↩ ↩2

  18. CIPD -- Supporting Transgender and Non-Binary People at Work: Guide for People Professionals. https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/guides/transgender-non-binary-edi/ ↩

  19. Equality Act 2010, sections 7, 12, and 149. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7 ↩ ↩2

Preview Free