Inheritance Act 1975 Claim by Cohabiting Partner UK (2026): Rights Without a Will

Yes — but only if they satisfy a specific eligibility test under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 s.1(1A), which was added by the Law Reform (Succession) Act 1995: (1) The eligibility test: the claimant must have been living in the same household as the deceased as the husband or wife (or, since the Civil Partnership Act 2004, as the civil partner) of the deceased for the whole of the period of 2 years ending immediately before the date of the death of the deceased. This is one of the most strictly interpreted provisions in succession law; (2) Why a cohabiting partner needs this remedy: under the intestacy rules (AEA 1925 s.46), a cohabiting partner inherits absolutely nothing — regardless of how long the relationship lasted, whether they have children together, or whether they were financially dependent. The Inheritance Act 1975 s.1(1A) is the only legal remedy. It does not give an automatic right to inherit — it gives the right to ask the court to exercise its discretion to make an award; (3) Important: the claim must be made even if there is a will. If the deceased left a will that excludes or insufficiently provides for the cohabiting partner, the partner can still apply if they meet the 2-year eligibility test.

The 2-year cohabitation requirement in s.1(1A) is interpreted strictly: (1) Continuous cohabitation: the 2 years must be continuous and end immediately before the date of death. It cannot be 2 years total over a longer relationship with gaps. A temporary separation for medical reasons (one partner in hospital or care home) may not break continuity if the relationship of cohabitation continued in substance; (2) 'Immediately before death': this phrase has caused significant difficulty in practice. If the couple separated before the death — even briefly — the eligibility is potentially lost. In Gully v Dix [2004] EWCA Civ 1, the parties had lived together for 27 years but separated 3 months before death. The Court of Appeal held that the word 'immediately' cannot be applied absolutely — the court must look at the reality of the situation and the nature of any separation. A temporary separation that does not represent a permanent breakdown of the cohabiting relationship may not destroy eligibility; (3) What counts as 'living in the same household': the couple must have been living together as husband and wife (or civil partners) — sharing a home, finances, domestic arrangements, and presenting as a couple. A couple who maintained two separate properties but spent most time at one may or may not satisfy this test depending on the facts. Casual or hotel-based relationships do not qualify; (4) Same-sex couples: s.1(1A) has applied equally to same-sex cohabiting couples since the Civil Partnership Act 2004 amendments — 'as the civil partner'; (5) Foreign domicile: if the deceased died domiciled outside England and Wales, the court has a limited discretion to apply English law — specialist advice required.

A cohabiting partner who satisfies the s.1(1A) eligibility test is entitled to apply for 'such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for a husband or wife to receive' — this is the same higher standard that applies to spouses and civil partners, not the lower 'maintenance only' standard that applies to adult children: (1) The 'as if married' standard: this is the key distinction from adult children's claims. A cohabiting partner can claim a share of the estate — not just their basic maintenance needs. In Re Watson [1999] 1 FLR 811, the court awarded a cohabiting partner a lump sum to provide her with a house (the family home) despite the deceased having left everything to his adult children from a previous relationship. The award reflected what she would have received had the couple been married; (2) Factors the court considers under s.3(2A): the court must have regard to the age of the applicant; the duration of the cohabitation; the contribution made by the applicant to the welfare of the deceased's family (including looking after the home or caring for the family). These factors replace the divorce/matrimonial standard factors (ancillary relief) — the court does not apply the White v White 'yardstick of equality' that applies on divorce. The starting point is what is reasonable, not equal; (3) Court's wide discretion: awards include: lump sum, property transfer, periodical payments, a life interest in the family home. The court can consider the entire estate and all the circumstances; (4) Competing claims: if the deceased's children are also beneficiaries, the court weighs the respective needs of all parties. A cohabiting partner with young shared children will typically receive more than one without.

The time limit is strict and often catches people out: (1) The 6-month rule: a claim must be issued (not just threatened) within 6 months of the date of the grant of probate or letters of administration (IA 1975 s.4). If the estate goes through intestacy (no will), the grant is letters of administration. If there is a will, the grant is probate; (2) The clock starts from the grant, not death: the grant is sometimes issued months after the death — particularly in complex or contested estates. A partner who does not monitor the Probate Registry will not know when the 6 months starts running; (3) How to find out when the grant was issued: grants of probate and letters of administration are public documents — they can be found at gov.uk/search-will-probate (search is free online; certified copies cost £1.50). A cohabiting partner who suspects a will exists or who has been told no grant has been issued should regularly check the Probate Registry search; (4) Late applications: the court can allow a late application under s.4, but this discretion is narrow and is not exercised lightly. The claimant must show good reason for the delay. Key factors: whether the estate has been distributed (a distributed estate is a major obstacle — Re Dennis [1981]); the strength of the claim; the reason for the delay; whether the beneficiaries would be prejudiced; (5) Practical advice: if you are a cohabiting partner who may have a claim, seek legal advice immediately on notification of your partner's death — do not wait. Issue a protective claim form before the 6-month deadline even if negotiations are ongoing.

The key differences are in the eligibility test, the standard of provision, and the practical outcomes: (1) Eligibility: cohabiting partner — 2 years of cohabitation immediately before death (s.1(1A)). Adult child — any child of the deceased, regardless of age, relationship quality, or financial circumstances (s.1(1)(c)); (2) Standard of provision: cohabiting partner — 'such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances for a husband or wife to receive' (s.1(2)(aa)) — the highest non-spouse standard. Adult child — 'such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances for the applicant to receive for his maintenance' (s.1(2)(b)) — maintenance only, the lowest standard; (3) Practical outcomes: cohabiting partner awards can include home purchase, significant capital sums, or life interests — reflecting a quasi-matrimonial position. Adult child awards are typically modest maintenance sums reflecting the claimant's needs, not their expectation of inheritance; (4) Conduct: conduct of the claimant is a relevant factor under s.3(1)(g) for both types of claimant. For a cohabiting partner, the quality and duration of the relationship is considered positively; (5) Priority between claims: where both a cohabiting partner and an adult child make claims against the same estate, the court weighs them against each other and against the interests of existing beneficiaries. There is no automatic priority — the court considers all claims holistically; (6) Why cohabiting partners should make a will: a cohabiting partner who already has a will in their partner's favour benefits much more directly and securely than any court application — a will gives certainty, speed, and avoids the £5,000–£20,000+ cost of contested litigation.