Justice Secretary Alex Norris is facing pushback from senior legal figures over proposals to grant unmarried couples court-enforced rights after three years of cohabitation, a plan inherited from his predecessor David Lammy. The reform effort comes as cohabiting couples remain the fastest-growing family type in the UK, according to Office for National Statistics data, yet England and Wales provide them with few of the automatic legal protections available to married couples upon separation.

The government is currently consulting on reforms to cohabitation rights in England and Wales. Under the proposals, courts would gain the power to intervene when unmarried couples separate after having a child together or living together for at least three years. Courts could then divide assets in a manner comparable to divorce proceedings for married couples. Supporters of reform, including family law practitioners such as the group Resolution, have long argued that the current legal gap leaves many cohabitants financially vulnerable—particularly where one partner has sacrificed career earnings to raise children. The Law Commission recommended reforming cohabitation law as far back as 2007, and Scotland already provides limited remedies for separating cohabitants under its 2006 Family Law Act.

Baroness Ruth Deech, a crossbench peer and former law lecturer, has written to Norris arguing that there is no clear public mandate for the reform and that it would undermine the concept of consent.

"If it goes forward, it is so unfair as people would be plunged into an intimate and overwhelming legal status without their consent or knowing about it," Deech told City AM.

Lammy's proposal, introduced in June and open for consultation until 14th August, would automatically impose financial, property, and inheritance rights on unmarried couples unless both partners agree to legally opt out. If one partner refuses to opt out, the law would still apply.

"If one person said they don't want it and one said I do, the one who doesn't want it would be held to ransom," Deech said.

She warned that for couples who do pursue legal representation in cohabitation disputes, "the cost of litigation would be horrendous."

"The costs would eat up most of the assets they are actually arguing against losing," she added.

A new poll by Survation found that 72 per cent of adults knew little or nothing about the reforms, while only 37 per cent supported them. The low awareness figures echo longstanding research documenting the widespread misconception of "common law marriage"—the erroneous belief that long-term cohabitants automatically acquire legal rights similar to those of married spouses.

"No sane consenting adult will want to live with someone earning less than them again," Deech said.

Government accused of 'turning a blind eye' to court system costs

Critics have warned that the reforms could generate an additional 10,000 court cases per year.

Judge Edward Hess, deputy national lead judge of the Financial Remedies Court, said the government has provided a "superficial and unsatisfactory analysis" of how the changes would affect the UK's court system, which is already grappling with a substantial backlog of cases.

"The reforms may well have wider benefits which make them objectively attractive; but turning a blind eye to the consequential costs cannot be right or sensible," Hess said.

Deech told City AM that the government should instead "do nothing, as there is plenty of existing law covering this already," or introduce a system in which at least one partner can opt out without requiring the other's consent.

She also noted that legislating such a change would be highly time-consuming for the government.

"A change like this would be a mammoth bill, and would need an awful lot of time in the Commons and Lords. Whether the government would actually find the time along with everything else on their plate, I don't know," Deech said.