Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

Estate Planning for Cohabiting Couples: Legal Frameworks and Advisory Best Practice

· 22 min

Executive Summary

Cohabitation represents the fastest-growing family structure in England and Wales, with 3.5 million cohabiting couple families comprising 17.7% of all families as of 2024. Despite this demographic shift, the legal framework governing estate planning remains fundamentally calibrated for married couples and civil partners. Cohabitants have no automatic inheritance rights under intestacy, cannot access IHT spouse exemption or transferable nil rate bands, and face a restricted "maintenance" standard under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. This article examines the statutory framework, leading case law from Ilott v Blue Cross to Stack v Dowden, and the multi-instrument advisory approach practitioners must deploy. With the Government's Spring 2026 consultation on cohabitation reform now confirmed, robust estate planning under current law remains essential for this growing client demographic.

1. Introduction: The Demographic Imperative

The composition of family structures across England and Wales has undergone a fundamental transformation over the past three decades. Data from the Office for National Statistics Families and Households bulletin for 2024 records 3.5 million cohabiting couple families, representing 17.7% of all families, an increase from 3.1 million (16.4%) in 2014.1 Census 2021 data further confirmed that the proportion of couples cohabiting rose from 20.6% in 2011 to 24.3% in 2021, representing a 144% increase since 1996 when 1.5 million cohabiting couple families were recorded.2

This demographic shift carries profound implications for estate planning practitioners. The Women and Equalities Committee's 2022 report, The Rights of Cohabiting Partners, identified that 46% of the population in England and Wales believes that "common law marriage" confers legal rights equivalent to marriage.3 Among households with children, this figure rises to 55%. The persistence of this misconception means that a substantial proportion of cohabiting clients approach professional advisors either unaware of their vulnerable legal position or actively misinformed about their entitlements.

For solicitors and estate planning specialists, the practice management implications are significant. Cohabiting clients can no longer be treated as an exceptional category warranting ad hoc modification of standard married-couple precedents. The scale of the demographic demands systematic advisory protocols, tailored retainer structures, and a coordinated multi-instrument approach that addresses the specific legal vulnerabilities cohabitants face. The Law Commission's Modernising Wills report (May 2025) further underscores the evolving landscape, recommending that the rule voiding gifts where a witness is a spouse of the beneficiary be extended to cohabitant witnesses, an implicit recognition of cohabitation's prevalence in contemporary estate planning.4

2. The Intestacy Gap: Statutory Exclusion and Its Consequences

2.1 The Current Intestacy Framework

The Administration of Estates Act 1925, section 46, as amended, provides the statutory framework for distribution on intestacy. The hierarchy of entitlement prioritises the surviving spouse or civil partner, who receives personal chattels, the statutory legacy (currently GBP 322,000 following the Administration of Estates Act 1925 (Fixed Net Sum) Order 2023, applicable to deaths after 26 July 2023), and 50% of the residuary estate where there are surviving issue.56 Where no issue survive, the spouse receives the entire estate.

Cohabitants are entirely absent from this statutory hierarchy. Regardless of the duration of cohabitation, shared financial commitments, or the existence of children, an unmarried surviving partner receives nothing under the intestacy rules. The practical consequences are stark: a cohabitant of thirty years who has contributed to mortgage payments, property maintenance, and family welfare occupies an identical legal position to a stranger with respect to intestacy entitlement. The previous statutory legacy amount of GBP 270,000 (applicable from January 2020 to July 2023) similarly provided no protection to cohabitants, and any future upward revision will continue to benefit only spouses and civil partners.

2.2 The Inheritance Act 1975: A Limited Safety Net

The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 provides the principal statutory remedy available to cohabitants excluded by will or intestacy. Section 1(1)(ba), inserted by the Law Reform (Succession) Act 1995 with effect from 1 January 1996, enables a person who lived in the same household as the deceased "as if that person and the deceased were a married couple or civil partners" for the whole period of two years ending immediately before death to apply for reasonable financial provision.7

However, two critical limitations constrain the utility of this remedy. First, the two-year cohabitation requirement creates a bright-line threshold that excludes shorter relationships regardless of their substance. The courts have adopted a flexible interpretation of "living in the same household" in cases such as Lindop v Agus [2009], where a couple maintaining two households over five years was held to qualify, and Swetenham v Walkley [2014], where a second property did not preclude the household requirement.8 Nonetheless, the two-year minimum remains an absolute prerequisite absent an alternative claim under section 1(1)(e) as a dependant.

Second, and more significantly, section 1(2) of the 1975 Act limits cohabitant applicants to the "maintenance" standard of provision, as distinct from the broader standard available to surviving spouses and civil partners. The Supreme Court's decision in Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17 reinforced this limitation decisively, although the claimant in that case was an adult child claiming under section 1(1)(c) rather than a cohabitant; the maintenance standard principle applies equally to cohabitant claims under section 1(1)(ba).9 The Court reinstated the first instance award of GBP 50,000, overturning the Court of Appeal's GBP 143,000, and held that "maintenance" cannot extend to "any or every thing which it would be desirable for the claimant to have." The practical effect is that cohabitant claims, even where meritorious, yield significantly more modest provision than a spouse might expect.

Section 3(2A) of the 1975 Act directs the court, when considering applications by cohabitants, to have regard to the age of the applicant, the length of the cohabitation period, and the contribution made to the welfare of the deceased's family, including non-financial contributions such as caregiving. While this provides a framework for assessing claims, it does not alter the fundamental maintenance ceiling on awards.

Practitioners advising cohabiting clients must communicate this disparity clearly: the 1975 Act is a remedial backstop of uncertain outcome, not a substitute for proactive estate planning. The six-month time limit from the grant of representation (section 4) adds procedural urgency that further diminishes the remedy's reliability as a planning strategy.

3. Property Rights: TOLATA, Constructive Trusts, and Proprietary Estoppel

3.1 TOLATA 1996

The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 provides a framework through which cohabitants may assert beneficial interests in property held on trust. Section 14 permits any person with an interest in trust property to apply to the court for an order relating to the exercise of trustee functions or declaring the nature and extent of a beneficial interest.10 Section 15 directs the court to consider the intentions of the person creating the trust, the purposes for which the property is held, the welfare of any minor occupying the property as a home, and the interests of secured creditors.

For cohabitants, TOLATA applications most commonly arise where property is held in the sole name of one partner and the other seeks to establish a beneficial interest. The outcome depends on the application of constructive trust and proprietary estoppel principles developed through case law. Where property is held in joint names, the TOLATA framework operates alongside the presumptions established by the Supreme Court regarding beneficial ownership, creating a more predictable but still potentially contested landscape.

3.2 The Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott Framework

The House of Lords decision in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 established the foundational framework for determining beneficial interests in cohabitation property disputes. Where property is held in joint names, the starting point is that beneficial interest follows legal interest, creating a presumption of equal shares. Rebuttal requires evidence of a common intention for a different allocation, with Baroness Hale identifying relevant factors including discussions at the time of purchase, financing arrangements, division of household expenses, and the nature of the relationship.11

The Supreme Court in Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 extended this framework, confirming that the parties' common intention may change over time through an "ambulatory constructive trust." Post-separation conduct became relevant to inferring changed intentions, and the Court held that where actual intention cannot be ascertained, the court may impute an intention based on fairness.12 The distinction between inferring and imputing intention remains a live issue in practice: inference draws on evidence of what parties actually intended, while imputation involves the court determining what the parties would have intended had they addressed the matter.

For sole-name properties, the claimant bears the evidential burden of establishing a common intention constructive trust. This requires demonstrating both a common intention that the claimant should have a beneficial interest and detrimental reliance on that common intention. The evidential challenges are substantial, and outcomes remain inherently unpredictable.

Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18 confirmed the continued viability of proprietary estoppel in the domestic context, establishing that representations may be made by conduct alone, provided assurances are "clear enough" when assessed in context, and the claimant has reasonably relied on them to their detriment.13

3.3 Declarations of Trust: The Importance of Express Documentation

The uncertainty inherent in constructive trust claims reinforces the critical importance of express declarations of trust for cohabiting clients. Under section 53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925, a declaration of trust over land must be evidenced in writing. A properly executed declaration is conclusive as to beneficial interests absent fraud or mistake, providing certainty that constructive trust litigation cannot.

Practitioners advising cohabiting clients on property acquisition or rearrangement should treat declarations of trust as a default recommendation, not an optional supplement. The declaration should address not only initial beneficial shares but also the mechanism for adjustment reflecting subsequent financial contributions and the procedure on relationship breakdown or death. The distinction between a declaration of trust (addressing property ownership specifically) and a cohabitation agreement (addressing broader relationship matters) should be made clear to clients, as the instruments serve complementary but distinct purposes.

4. The Multi-Instrument Advisory Approach

4.1 Will Drafting for Cohabitants

A will remains the single most important protective instrument for cohabiting couples. Without a valid will, the intestacy rules apply without exception, leaving the surviving cohabitant entirely dependent on 1975 Act claims. Practitioners drafting wills for cohabitants must address several considerations that differ from married-couple precedents.

First, the will should include a clear statement of the testator's relationship status and the reasons for the disposition, particularly where it departs from what might be expected under intestacy. Such a statement assists in defending against potential challenges and demonstrates that the testator understood the implications of the disposition.14 Where the testator has children from a previous relationship, the statement should address how provision has been balanced between the surviving partner and children, reducing the risk of contentious probate claims.

Second, practitioners should consider including a survivorship clause tailored to the specific circumstances, while remaining alert to the IHT implications of survivorship conditions exceeding six months in the context of property that cannot benefit from spouse exemption. A commorientes clause addressing simultaneous death scenarios requires particular attention, since the statutory presumption under section 184 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (elder deemed to predecease younger) may produce unintended results for cohabiting couples with different beneficiary hierarchies.

Third, where both partners are making wills, practitioners must manage the conflict of interest inherent in advising both parties. The SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors requires practitioners to identify and manage conflicts of interest, and acting for both partners in a cohabiting relationship requires informed written consent and, ideally, separate advice on any provisions where interests diverge.15 Unlike married couples, where mutual wills may create binding obligations, cohabiting partners have no statutory mechanism preventing revocation, and practitioners should ensure both parties understand this limitation.

4.2 Cohabitation Agreements

Cohabitation agreements address the broader relationship framework beyond property ownership. The Law Commission's position, reflected in practice guidance, is that such agreements are governed by ordinary contract principles and are challengeable on grounds of fraud, duress, undue influence, misrepresentation, or mistake.16

While cohabitation agreements are not legally enforceable in the same prescriptive sense as court orders, courts generally uphold agreements that have been properly drafted, where both parties received independent legal advice, full financial disclosure was made, and no unfair pressure was applied. Best practice dictates execution as a deed, ensuring the agreement addresses property ownership, financial arrangements during the relationship, provisions on separation, and, critically, the interaction with testamentary dispositions. The agreement should be reviewed periodically, particularly following significant changes in circumstances such as the birth of children, property acquisition, or substantial changes in financial position.

4.3 Pension Nominations and Life Insurance

Cohabitants have no automatic entitlement to deceased partner's pension death benefits, a position that contrasts sharply with the statutory rights of married persons under many scheme rules. Benefits depend entirely on scheme rules and explicit beneficiary nominations. The Supreme Court's decision in Brewster [2017] addressed the specific issue of nomination requirements in public sector pensions, and HM Treasury subsequently directed public pension schemes to reconsider refusals based solely on missing nominations.17

For private sector schemes, the position varies according to scheme rules. Defined benefit schemes typically provide a spouse's pension automatically but may require a nomination for unmarried partners; some schemes impose qualifying periods or cohabitation requirements analogous to the two-year threshold in the 1975 Act. Defined contribution schemes generally allow greater flexibility in beneficiary designation but remain dependent on the member completing and updating nomination forms.

Practitioners advising cohabiting clients must ensure that pension beneficiary nominations are completed for all relevant schemes, reviewed periodically, and aligned with testamentary dispositions. The NHS Pension Scheme, for example, requires completion of the Partner Nomination Form (PN1) alongside evidence of two-year cohabitation for qualifying partner status. Similarly, life insurance beneficiary designations should be reviewed as part of the coordinated planning exercise, with consideration given to writing policies in trust to manage IHT exposure and ensure proceeds reach the intended beneficiary without delay.

5. IHT Planning: Navigating the Absence of Spouse Exemption

5.1 The Structural Disadvantage

The inheritance tax regime creates a fundamental structural disadvantage for cohabiting couples compared with married couples and civil partners. Three key provisions are unavailable or restricted for cohabitants:

The spouse exemption under section 18 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 renders transfers between spouses and civil partners entirely exempt from IHT. This exemption is not available to cohabitants.18

The transferable nil rate band under sections 8A to 8C of IHTA 1984 permits the unused proportion of a deceased spouse's nil rate band to be transferred to the surviving spouse. Cohabitants cannot access this mechanism.19

The residence nil rate band (RNRB) under sections 8D to 8M of IHTA 1984 is available only where a qualifying residential interest is "closely inherited" by a lineal descendant as defined in section 8K. A surviving cohabitant is not a lineal descendant for this purpose, meaning the RNRB is unavailable where property passes to a surviving partner rather than to children or other qualifying descendants.20 The RNRB transferability mechanism available to surviving spouses under section 8G is similarly inaccessible to cohabitants. This creates a planning tension: a cohabitant wishing to maximise RNRB availability must leave the qualifying residential interest to children or other lineal descendants rather than to the surviving partner, potentially leaving the partner without housing security.

With the nil rate band frozen at GBP 325,000 and the residence nil rate band at GBP 175,000 until at least April 2030, a married couple can potentially pass up to GBP 1 million free of IHT through combined NRB and RNRB allowances with full transferability. A cohabiting couple faces a fundamentally different position: each partner's individual NRB of GBP 325,000 cannot be transferred to the survivor, the RNRB is unavailable unless property passes to lineal descendants, and any transfer between partners on death constitutes a chargeable transfer to the extent it exceeds the available nil rate band. To illustrate the disparity: where the first partner to die leaves an estate of GBP 600,000 entirely to the surviving cohabitant, the IHT liability is GBP 110,000 (GBP 600,000 minus GBP 325,000 NRB, with the resulting GBP 275,000 taxed at 40%). The RNRB does not apply because the property does not pass to a lineal descendant. Had the couple been married, the spouse exemption would eliminate the liability entirely, and the unused NRB and RNRB would transfer to the surviving spouse for use on second death.

5.2 Planning Strategies Within Statutory Constraints

Several strategies merit consideration for cohabiting clients, each carrying specific conditions and limitations.

Lifetime gifts utilising the seven-year potentially exempt transfer rule provide a mechanism for reducing the taxable estate, though the donor must survive seven years for complete IHT relief. Taper relief applies to transfers within three to seven years of death, reducing the tax payable on a sliding scale, but the requirement for survival and the loss of access to gifted assets may be impractical for many clients.21 Annual exemptions (GBP 3,000 per donor), small gifts exemption (GBP 250 per donee), and gifts out of normal expenditure from income provide additional, if modest, planning opportunities that do not carry the seven-year survival requirement.

Where applicable, agricultural property relief and business property relief operate independently of marital status and may provide 50% or 100% relief on qualifying assets. Practitioners advising clients with agricultural or business interests should assess eligibility carefully, noting the specific ownership and use requirements, including the two-year ownership period for APR and the minimum two-year trading period for BPR on unquoted shares.

Insurance-based solutions, particularly whole-of-life policies written in trust for the benefit of the surviving partner, provide a means of funding an anticipated IHT liability without increasing the taxable estate. The policy proceeds, held in trust, fall outside the deceased's estate for IHT purposes, provided the trust structure is properly established. Practitioners should ensure the trust documentation is compatible with the overall estate plan and that premium payments do not themselves constitute chargeable transfers exceeding available exemptions.

6. The Reform Horizon and Advisory Best Practice

6.1 Legislative Background

The Law Commission's Report No. 307, Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown (2007), recommended an opt-out scheme for financial relief on separation for eligible cohabitants but was never implemented.22 The Law Commission's subsequent Report No. 331, Intestacy and Family Provision Claims on Death (2011), recommended reforms to the intestacy framework including enhanced provision for cohabitants, but these recommendations were similarly not enacted. The Women and Equalities Committee's 2022 report renewed calls for reform, recommending implementation of the Law Commission's proposals, but the Government's November 2022 response rejected most recommendations.

In February 2025, Lord Ponsonby committed to a formal consultation "later in 2025" with the aim of "building public consensus on what cohabitation reform should look like." Proposed areas include property ownership frameworks, inheritance rights, financial support addressing caregiving sacrifices, and opt-out mechanisms.23 In November 2025, Baroness Levitt KC, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, confirmed in a House of Lords debate that the Government would launch a wide-ranging consultation in Spring 2026 addressing cohabitation reform alongside financial remedies on divorce, ruling out a "piecemeal approach" and committing to examine these issues "in tandem."24 The consultation, described as a manifesto commitment, will place children at the centre of the reform framework.

6.2 Implications for Current Advisory Practice

The Government's November 2025 announcement confirmed that the consultation on cohabitation reform will launch in Spring 2026, representing a delayed but substantive commitment to addressing the legal position of cohabitants. No primary legislation has been introduced, and the history of reform proposals -- from the 2007 Law Commission report through the 2022 Women and Equalities Committee recommendations -- counsels against assuming legislative change is imminent even following consultation. Practitioners must therefore continue advising on the basis of current law while monitoring the Spring 2026 consultation with particular attention to any proposals affecting inheritance rights, IHT treatment, and intestacy entitlements. The reform uncertainty creates a dual obligation: to ensure clients are adequately protected under the existing framework while noting that future legislative change may alter entitlements, potentially including retrospective provisions for existing relationships.

The Law Commission's Modernising Wills report (May 2025) provides additional context for the pillar of will-writing practice management. While the Government welcomed the recommendations, including the proposed extension of witness disqualification rules to cohabitant witnesses of beneficiaries, no legislative timetable has been confirmed and the draft Bill for a new Wills Act has not been introduced to Parliament.4 Practitioners should treat these developments as matters requiring ongoing monitoring rather than imminent operational change.

6.3 Client Intake and Communication Protocols

Effective advisory practice for cohabiting clients begins at intake. Practitioners should incorporate relationship status verification into standard client intake procedures, ensuring that cohabitation is identified systematically rather than disclosed incidentally. Where cohabitation is identified, the initial advisory conversation must address the "common law marriage" misconception directly, establishing the client's actual legal position before substantive planning commences. Given that 46% of the population holds this misconception, practitioners should assume the need for correction rather than treating it as an occasional requirement.3

Client communication should frame the advisory relationship in terms of coordinated risk management across multiple instruments. Practitioners who confine their advice to will drafting alone, without addressing property rights documentation, pension nominations, life insurance arrangements, and IHT planning, leave clients with significant residual exposure. The retainer should be structured to encompass the full range of protective instruments, with clear identification of any matters falling outside the firm's competence that require referral to specialist tax advisors or financial planners.

Conclusion

The estate planning landscape for cohabiting couples presents practitioners with a complex advisory challenge that demands systematic rather than ad hoc responses. The statutory framework remains calibrated for married couples and civil partners, leaving cohabitants exposed to intestacy exclusion, restricted remedies under the 1975 Act, and significant IHT disadvantages. Effective advisory practice requires deployment of coordinated instruments: wills, declarations of trust, cohabitation agreements, pension nominations, and insurance-based solutions, each addressing a specific dimension of vulnerability.

The reform trajectory, while potentially transformative, remains uncertain. The Government's confirmed Spring 2026 consultation represents a significant step, but the history of cohabitation reform proposals counsels against assuming legislative change is imminent. Practitioners serve cohabiting clients best by ensuring comprehensive protection under current law while maintaining awareness of developments that may, in due course, reshape the legal framework for this growing demographic.

CPD Declaration

Estimated Reading Time: 20 minutes Technical Level: Advanced Practice Areas: Wills and Probate, Estate Planning, Family Law, Tax Planning

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Identify the key statutory provisions excluding cohabitants from intestacy entitlements and IHT reliefs available to married couples
  2. Evaluate the scope and limitations of Inheritance Act 1975 claims by cohabitant applicants, applying the maintenance standard established in Ilott v Blue Cross
  3. Apply the constructive trust framework from Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott to assess cohabitant property rights in advisory practice
  4. Design a coordinated multi-instrument estate planning strategy addressing the specific vulnerabilities of cohabiting clients

SRA Competency Mapping

  • A2: Maintain competence and legal knowledge (succession law developments, cohabitation reform monitoring)
  • B5: Apply understanding, critical thinking and analysis to complex situations (multi-instrument estate planning for non-standard family structures)

Reflective Questions

  1. How would you adapt your firm's client intake procedures to ensure cohabitation status is systematically identified and the "common law marriage" misconception addressed at the outset of the advisory relationship?
  2. What additional steps would you implement when advising both partners in a cohabiting couple on mutual wills, given the conflict of interest considerations under the SRA Code of Conduct?
  3. How might the Government's Spring 2026 cohabitation consultation, once published, affect the estate planning strategies you currently recommend to unmarried clients?

Professional Disclaimer

The information presented reflects the regulatory and legislative position as of 2026-02-02. 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 2024 (July 2025). https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2024 ↩

  2. ONS Census 2021 Living Arrangements. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinternetandsocialmediausage/articles/livingarrangementsofpeopleinenglandandwales/census2021 ↩

  3. Women and Equalities Committee, The Rights of Cohabiting Partners, HC 92 (August 2022). https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmwomeq/92/report.html ↩ ↩2

  4. Law Commission, Modernising Wills (May 2025). https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/wills/ ↩ ↩2

  5. Administration of Estates Act 1925, s.46 (as amended). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/23/section/46 ↩

  6. Administration of Estates Act 1925 (Fixed Net Sum) Order 2023, SI 2023/758. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2023/758/made ↩

  7. Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, s.1(1)(ba), as inserted by Law Reform (Succession) Act 1995. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/63 ↩

  8. Lindop v Agus [2009] EWHC 1795 (Ch). http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1795.html; Swetenham v Walkley [2014] WTLR 845 (reported; full judgment not freely available online). ↩

  9. Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0203.html ↩

  10. Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, s.14. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/47/section/14 ↩

  11. Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd070425/stack.pdf ↩

  12. Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2010-0245.html ↩

  13. Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090325/thor.pdf ↩

  14. Law Society, Wills and Estate Planning Practice Note. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/wills-and-probate ↩

  15. SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, Rule 6.2. https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/code-conduct-solicitors/ ↩

  16. Law Commission, Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown, Report No. 307 (2007). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7ca0e7ed915d12ab4bc10b/7182.pdf ↩

  17. Brewster v Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee [2017] UKSC 8. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0165.html ↩

  18. Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s.18. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/51/section/18 ↩

  19. Inheritance Tax Act 1984, ss.8A-8C (as inserted by Finance Act 2008). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/51/section/8A ↩

  20. Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s.8K (definition of lineal descendant for RNRB purposes). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/51/section/8K; HMRC Inheritance Tax Manual, IHTM46013: The Residence Nil Rate Band. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm46013 ↩

  21. HMRC Inheritance Tax Manual, IHTM14000: Potentially Exempt Transfers. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm14000 ↩

  22. Law Commission Report No. 307, Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown (2007). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7ca0e7ed915d12ab4bc10b/7182.pdf ↩

  23. Law Society Gazette, Government Reform Timetable (February 2025). https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/mps-demand-timetable-for-cohabitation-reform/5122238.article ↩

  24. Law Society Gazette, Government Consultation on Divorce and Cohabitation Reform (November 2025). https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/moj-to-issue-divorce-reform-consultation-by-spring/5125063.article; Financial Remedies Journal, Parliamentary Debate on Financial Remedies and Cohabitation Law Reform (November 2025). https://financialremediesjournal.com/parliamentary-debate-reveals-governments-latest-intentions-for-financial-remedies-and-cohabitation-law-reform/ ↩