Cohabiting couples are increasingly common, but the law in England and Wales does not currently give unmarried partners the same automatic inheritance rights as spouses or civil partners. This often comes as a surprise after someone dies. Many people believe that a long-term partner will automatically inherit if they lived together, shared a home or were financially connected. In reality, there is no automatic 'common law spouse' status. Unless a cohabiting partner is named in a valid will, owns assets jointly with the deceased, or succeeds with a legal claim, they may receive nothing from the estate. Recent developments have brought this issue back into focus. The High Court case of Matyas v Daniel & Ors (2026) EWHC 1368 (Ch) shows how difficult it can be for a surviving partner to prove that they qualify under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. At the same time, the Government has launched a consultation considering whether cohabitants should have stronger rights when a partner dies without a will. For claimants, executors and beneficiaries, this is an important area of contentious probate. Cohabiting partner claims are often emotionally sensitive, fact-specific and heavily dependent on evidence.
Under the current law, a cohabiting partner does not automatically inherit from their partner's estate simply because they lived together or were in a long-term relationship.
If there is a valid will, the estate will usually be distributed according to the terms of that will. If there is no will, the estate passes under the rules of intestacy. These rules prioritise spouses, civil partners, children and other family members, but they do not automatically include unmarried partners.
This can create difficult outcomes. A surviving partner may have lived with the deceased for many years, contributed to household expenses or relied on them financially, but still have no automatic right to inherit.
In some circumstances, a cohabiting partner may be able to bring a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
However, this is not the same as automatic inheritance. It is a legal claim for reasonable financial provision from the estate, and the claimant must first show that they qualify.
The Inheritance Act allows certain people to bring a claim where they believe the deceased's estate has not made reasonable financial provision for them.
For cohabiting partners, one of the key routes is to show that, for the whole period of two years immediately before the deceased's death, they were living in the same household as the deceased as if they were married or civil partners.
This test is important. It is not always enough to show that there was a romantic relationship, emotional closeness or regular time spent together. The court will look at the reality of the relationship and whether it had the features of a settled, committed partnership similar to marriage or civil partnership.
If the claimant qualifies, the court then considers whether reasonable financial provision has been made. For most cohabiting partners, this usually means provision for maintenance rather than a general right to share the estate equally.
In Matyas v Daniel & Ors (2026) EWHC 1368 (Ch), Tibor Matyas brought a claim in relation to the estate of fashion designer Chris Liu. Mr Matyas argued that he and Mr Liu had been romantic and business partners and that they had lived together as a married couple.
To succeed under the Inheritance Act as a cohabiting partner, Mr Matyas needed to prove that he and the deceased lived in the same household as if they were married or civil partners for the full two-year period immediately before death.
The evidence was mixed. In some contexts, the pair appeared to present themselves as partners. However, in other settings, including in relation to Mr Liu's family, they were presented more as business associates. The court ultimately found that the evidence did not establish the required relationship for the purposes of the Act, and the claim failed.
The case is a useful reminder that the court is not simply asking whether two people were romantically involved. It must decide whether the statutory test is met, based on the evidence available.
Cohabiting partner claims often depend on detailed evidence. Private relationships do not always leave clear records, and after death the deceased is no longer able to explain their intentions.
The court may look at whether the couple lived at the same address, how long they lived together, whether they shared household expenses, whether they had joint finances, and how they presented themselves to family, friends, neighbours and professionals.
Documents can also be important. Bank statements, tenancy agreements, property records, messages, letters, medical records, pension forms, insurance documents and 'next of kin' records may all help show the nature of the relationship.
In some cases, the evidence may point in different directions. A couple may have shared a home but kept their finances separate. They may have been open with close friends but private with family. They may have stayed together regularly but maintained separate properties. The court will consider the full picture rather than one fact in isolation.
Some relationships are kept private for cultural, religious, family or personal reasons. A private relationship is not automatically excluded from protection, but it can make the evidence more difficult.
If the deceased presented the relationship differently to different people, the court may need to decide which version best reflects reality. For example, a person may have introduced their partner as a romantic partner to close friends, but as a friend or business associate to family members.
For claimants, this means it is important to gather as much supporting evidence as possible. For executors and beneficiaries, it means the claim should be assessed carefully rather than dismissed simply because the relationship was not publicly acknowledged.
These cases can be emotionally difficult because they often involve sensitive evidence about the deceased's private life. Early legal advice can help ensure that the evidence is reviewed properly and presented appropriately.
Even if a cohabiting partner qualifies to bring a claim, the court must still decide whether reasonable financial provision has been made for them.
For cohabiting partners, this usually means provision for maintenance. The court will consider the claimant's financial needs, income, housing position, age, health, earning capacity and any financial dependency on the deceased. It will also consider the size of the estate and the needs of other beneficiaries.
The court may also look at what the claimant has already received. For example, if the surviving partner inherited jointly owned property, received pension benefits or was left something under the will, this may affect whether further provision is needed.
The court's role is not to rewrite the will simply because someone is disappointed. It must apply the statutory test and decide whether the estate has failed to make reasonable provision in the circumstances.
The Government consultation is considering whether the law should give qualifying cohabitants stronger rights, particularly where someone dies without a will.
This could be an important change. At present, a cohabiting partner has no automatic entitlement under the intestacy rules. If reform is introduced, some cohabitants may be able to inherit without having to bring a costly Inheritance Act claim.
However, the consultation does not change the law immediately. Until any reform is passed and brought into force, cohabitants remain in a vulnerable position if they are not protected by a will, property ownership arrangements or other estate planning.
It is also important to note that proposed intestacy reform would mainly affect cases where there is no will. If the deceased left a valid will excluding or limiting provision for a partner, a surviving cohabitant may still need to consider whether an Inheritance Act claim is available.
Reform may reduce disputes in some cases, particularly where a person dies without a will and leaves behind a long-term partner who would otherwise receive nothing.
However, disputes are unlikely to disappear completely. There may still be arguments over whether a person qualifies as a cohabitant, whether the relationship met the required criteria, how long the couple lived together, and how the estate should be shared with children or other family members.
Borderline cases may still end up in dispute. The Matyas case shows how difficult these questions can be where the evidence is unclear or the relationship was not presented consistently to others.
Even if the law changes, clear estate planning will remain the best way for cohabiting couples to avoid uncertainty.
Cohabiting couples should not wait for the law to change. The safest step is to make a valid will that clearly sets out who should inherit and who should administer the estate.
Couples should also review how their property is owned. Property owned as joint tenants will usually pass automatically to the surviving joint owner. Property owned as tenants in common will pass under the will or, if there is no will, under the intestacy rules.
It is also important to review pensions, life insurance policies and death in service benefits. These may not always pass under the will and may require separate nomination forms.
Clear planning can reduce the risk of disputes and help ensure that both partners understand what would happen if one of them died.
Executors should take any Inheritance Act claim seriously. They should avoid distributing the estate too quickly if a claim is threatened or ongoing, as this can create personal risk.
The first step is to understand the basis of the claim. Is the claimant saying they lived with the deceased as a spouse or civil partner? Are they claiming financial dependency? Are they challenging the will? Are they claiming an interest in property? These are different legal issues and should be considered carefully.
Beneficiaries may feel frustrated if a claim is made against an estate they expected to inherit. However, a valid will does not prevent every possible claim. At the same time, claimants must prove their case, and weak or unsupported claims can be challenged.
Early advice can help executors and beneficiaries assess the strength of the claim, preserve estate assets and decide whether negotiation, mediation or formal proceedings may be needed.
Cohabiting partner claims are one of the most sensitive areas of contentious probate. The law does not currently give unmarried partners the same automatic inheritance rights as spouses or civil partners, and there is no automatic right to inherit under the intestacy rules.
The decision in Matyas v Daniel & Ors (2026) EWHC 1368 (Ch) highlights the importance of evidence. A relationship may have been genuine, but the claimant must still prove that the legal test is met.
The Government consultation may lead to future reform, particularly for cohabitants where a partner dies without a will. However, reform is not yet law and may not remove all disputes.
For cohabiting couples, the best protection remains clear estate planning. For claimants, executors and beneficiaries involved in a dispute, early specialist advice is essential.
Premier Solicitors' specialist contentious probate team advises claimants, executors and beneficiaries on complex estate disputes, including Inheritance Act claims involving cohabiting partners.
We can help assess whether a claim may be available, review the evidence, respond to a claim against an estate and work towards a practical resolution where possible.
Where court proceedings are necessary, our team can provide clear, strategic advice throughout the process.
For advice on a cohabiting partner claim, disputed estate or Inheritance Act matter, please contact our contentious probate team at contentiousprobate@premiersolicitors.co.uk.
Read more blog posts which Alex has written for this website.
