Justice Secretary Alex Norris Faces Backlash Over Unmarried Couples Cohabitation Reform

Justice Secretary Alex Norris is facing intense pushback from senior legal figures over proposals that would grant unmarried couples court-enforced asset-division rights after three years of cohabitation. The controversial framework, originally formulated by his predecessor David Lammy, is currently undergoing public consultation until Aug. 14, 2026.

Proposed Cohabitation Reforms and Automatic Opt-Out Rules

Under the consultation proposals introduced in June 2026, courts would gain the power to intervene when unmarried couples separate after living together for three years or after having a child. The mechanism would automatically impose financial, property, and inheritance rights similar to the legal outcomes seen during a divorce of married couples.

The framework stipulates that these rules would apply automatically unless both partners formally agree to legally opt out. According to the policy design, if a single partner refuses to opt out, the law remains binding on both individuals.

Legal Critics Warn of Consent Violations and ‘Horrendous’ Litigation Costs

Baroness Ruth Deech, a crossbench peer and former law lecturer, has formally written to Justice Secretary Alex Norris to object to the policy. Deech argues the initiative lacks a clear public mandate and fundamentally subverts the legal concept of consent.

Proceeding with this plan is profoundly unjust, as individuals would find themselves thrust into a deeply personal and burdensome legal standing unknowingly and without their agreement.

Baroness Ruth Deech

Deech also cautioned that if one partner wants to opt out and the other refuses, the dissenting partner would be held to ransom. Furthermore, she warned that court battles over cohabitation disputes would generate legal fees so steep that they would ultimately consume the very assets being contested.

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

Baroness Ruth Deech

Public Awareness Gaps and Strain on the Courts

Data from a Survation poll indicates that public awareness of the planned legal shift remains exceptionally low. The survey found that 72 per cent of adults knew little or nothing about the reforms, while only 37 per cent expressed support for them.

Beyond consumer concerns, the judicial system itself faces severe warnings regarding capacity. Judge Edward Hess, deputy national lead judge of the Financial Remedies Court, criticized the government for presenting a superficial and unsatisfactory analysis regarding how an estimated 10,000 additional court cases per year would impact an already backlogged judiciary.

While the proposed changes might offer broader advantages that render them appealing in principle, ignoring their resulting expenses is neither logical nor prudent.

Judge Edward Hess

Deech suggested that the government should abandon the initiative entirely, noting that ample legal frameworks already exist to handle such disputes, or alternatively restructure the rules so that a single partner can opt out without requiring mutual consent. She also questioned whether the administration possesses the parliamentary time necessary to shepherd such a mammoth bill through the House of Commons and the House of Lords.