The law on how money is divided when a marriage ends has, in the government's own words, "remained largely unchanged for over half a century". Most of what a family lawyer tells you today does not appear in any Act of Parliament. It comes from decades of judges deciding individual cases.

In June 2026 the Ministry of Justice published a consultation called A fairer end to relationships, proposing to change that. It covers divorce finances in England and Wales, new rights for unmarried couples, and what happens when a cohabiting partner dies without a will. The consultation closed on 14 August 2026.

The first thing to know is that none of it is law. If you are divorcing now, the rules have not changed. The paper says any legislation "will be introduced when parliamentary time allows", and at the time of writing we can find no published government response. Treat everything below as a direction of travel, not a rule you can rely on.

The short answer

• Equal sharing of what you built together would go into statute as the starting point.
• A three-stage order for needs would put children first, then housing and income, then everything else.
• Pre-nups and post-nups could become binding if they meet strict safeguards.
• Spousal maintenance would not be restricted, and no time limit would be added to financial claims.
• Unmarried couples would get a narrower set of rights for the first time.

Why reform at all

The Law Commission reported in 2024 that the current law lacks certainty and accessibility. That is a polite way of describing something most separating couples feel directly: you cannot look up the answer.

Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 gives the court a list of factors and a wide discretion. Everything else, including the idea that assets are shared equally at all, has been built on top by judges. So two couples can walk into two solicitors' offices with similar facts and come out with different expectations, and the uncertainty itself becomes something to fight over.

The government calls its answer "codification-plus". It would write the settled principles down in legislation and add targeted reforms where the law is unclear. The stated aim is to make it easier to resolve finances without going to court.

Sharing: the principle moves into statute

The proposal is that the court's starting point becomes, in law, that matrimonial property is shared equally unless unequal division is required to meet needs.

Most people assume this is already the rule. In practice it largely is, but only where there is enough to go round. The consultation itself notes that equal sharing is "generally less common" than division based on need, because in most divorces the money is not enough to do anything else with.

The paper would also define the two kinds of property, following the Supreme Court's decision in Standish v Standish:

Non-matrimonial property does not become untouchable. It can still be used if matrimonial property cannot meet needs, and it can become matrimonial over time through a process the paper calls matrimonialisation. If you inherited money and it paid off the joint mortgage, that distinction may already have gone.

Needs: three stages, in order

This is the part most likely to change how a negotiation feels, because at the moment "needs" is largely a word that judges have given meaning to.

The proposal is a methodical order:

1. Children's needs come first.
2. Each of your capital and income needs, covering things like housing and pensions.
3. Discretionary needs, considered only after that and only where resources permit.

For a family where the house is the main asset, that order is close to what happens now. Its value is that you could see it written down before you sit in mediation, which is exactly when a clear framework helps. We wrote about how those conversations go in who gets the house in a UK divorce.

The remedies themselves would not change. The paper is explicit that it suggests no changes to the orders available under the 1973 Act, so lump sums, pension sharing and property orders all stay.

Pre-nups could finally bind

At present a nuptial agreement is not automatically binding. A court can take one into account, and since Radmacher v Granatino a couple will usually be held to one that was freely entered into with a full understanding of what it meant, unless that would be unfair. The word "usually" is what people pay lawyers for.

The proposal is a qualifying nuptial agreement, enforceable as a contract, with safeguards taken from the Law Commission's 2014 work:

Two limits matter. You could not use one to opt out of your children's needs. And you could not contract out of meeting each other's needs altogether, although the government proposes a narrower test here than in ordinary cases, leaving out discretionary needs.

What the government decided not to change

The Law Commission's report raised several ideas that this paper sets aside. The government says it has concluded that reform is not needed on three of them:

• Restrictions on spousal maintenance. Its reasoning is that open-ended "joint lives" orders are already very rare.
• Financial provision for children over 18.
• Limitation periods for financial claims.

That last one deserves attention. It means there would still be no time limit on a former spouse bringing a claim, which is the entire reason a consent order matters. Reform would not rescue anybody who skipped that step.

If you are working out what maintenance could look like for you, the current position is in our guide to spousal maintenance and the clean break.

Domestic abuse and economic abuse

The current test for taking behaviour into account is very high. The case law asks whether conduct is so serious it would make you gasp rather than merely gulp, and the paper says plainly that this formulation "risks trivialising domestic abuse".

The government has not proposed an answer here. It has asked whether domestic abuse, including coercive control and economic abuse, should more readily be taken into account when assets are divided. If this is your situation, do not wait for reform to get support: start with what post-separation abuse looks like and speak to a specialist solicitor.

Living together: new rights, but narrower ones

The foreword puts the number of cohabiting couples at over 3.5 million. Many assume they have the protections of marriage, and they do not.

The proposed framework would apply automatically to eligible couples, with an option to opt out if both agree. Eligibility would be limited to adults in a long-term, committed relationship who have lived together for at least three years, or live together and share a child.

It is deliberately not divorce-lite. The court would begin from the position that each of you keeps what you legally own, and depart from that only to meet defined needs, with no discretionary needs at all. Maintenance would be limited to exceptional, time-bound circumstances. The paper also proposes that qualifying cohabitants could inherit automatically where a partner dies without a will.

What to do if you are divorcing now

Nothing about your case changes because of a consultation, and we would be wary of anyone advising you to wait for it. There is no date for a bill, let alone for commencement, and delay has real costs of its own.

Three things are worth doing regardless:

1. Work out your needs in the order the paper uses. Children, then housing and income, then the rest. It is a useful discipline under the current law too.
2. Get a financial order, by consent if you can. Without one, the claims stay open.
3. Prepare properly for the conversation. Our guide to preparing for divorce mediation covers what to bring.

If you are thinking of marrying or remarrying, this is the moment to take legal advice on a nuptial agreement. Drafted now to the proposed safeguards, it is more likely to stand up whichever way the law lands.

Frequently asked questions

Has the divorce law changed?

No. A fairer end to relationships is a consultation that closed on 14 August 2026. The current law still applies, and no date has been given for legislation.

Will assets be split 50/50 in future?

Equal sharing of matrimonial property would be the statutory starting point, but only where unequal division is not required to meet needs. In most divorces, needs will still decide the outcome.

Would a pre-nup be legally binding?

If the proposals go ahead and it meets the safeguards, yes, with limits. It could not remove provision for children or leave one of you without your needs met.

Does this apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland?

No. The consultation covers England and Wales.

Will there be a time limit on financial claims after divorce?

Not under these proposals. The government has concluded that limitation periods are not needed, so a financial order remains the way to end claims.

Do unmarried couples get the same rights as married couples?

No. The proposal is deliberately narrower, starting from each person keeping what they own and meeting only defined needs.

The short version

• Nothing has changed yet. The consultation closed in August and there is no bill.
• Equal sharing and a three-stage order for needs would be written into law.
• Binding nuptial agreements are proposed, with strict safeguards.
• No limit on maintenance and no time limit on claims, so a consent order still matters.

A law that is easier to read does not make the conversation easier to have. If you are stuck on the same argument with your ex, book a free call and we will talk through how to get it moving.

The proposals are in the Ministry of Justice's consultation paper. The current law is section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.