On 5 June 2026, the Government published its long-awaited consultation, A Fairer End to Relationships. It covers three major areas of reform: financial remedies on divorce and dissolution, financial provision for cohabitants on separation, and inheritance rights for cohabitants when a partner dies without a will.

But buried inside the technical language is something much bigger. The Government has expressly recognised that domestic abuse, including economic abuse, can continue after separation through the financial remedy process itself.

The consultation is open until 14 August 2026. Victim-survivors, family lawyers, domestic abuse organisations, academics, judges, mediators and members of the public can respond through the official consultation page: respond to the consultation here.

Why this consultation is different

Financial remedy reform is not new. Family lawyers have complained for years that the law is uncertain, inaccessible and too dependent on broad judicial discretion. The core statute, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, is more than 50 years old. It has been developed by case law, but for ordinary people — especially litigants in person — that makes the system difficult to understand and even harder to navigate.

The Law Commission’s 2024 scoping report concluded that the current law lacks certainty and accessibility, and set out possible models for reform. The Government has now chosen to consult on what it calls a “codification-plus” model: putting settled case law principles such as needs and sharing into statute, while also considering targeted reforms.

The domestic abuse issue: why the “gasp factor” is under fire

One of the most significant parts of the consultation concerns misconduct and domestic abuse in financial remedy cases.

Traditionally, conduct is only taken into account in financial remedy proceedings in limited circumstances. The often-cited formulation is whether it would be inequitable to disregard the conduct. Over time, this has been associated with what many practitioners call the “gasp factor”: behaviour so serious that the court effectively “gasps” before deciding it should affect the financial outcome.

That approach has been heavily criticised in domestic abuse cases.

The Government consultation expressly recognises this concern. It states that the current approach may risk trivialising domestic abuse and failing to reflect the seriousness of such behaviour. It asks whether domestic abuse should more readily be taken into account in financial remedy and future cohabitation proceedings.

Economic abuse does not stop when the relationship ends

Economic abuse is not simply “arguments about money”. It is a form of coercive control. It can include restricting access to bank accounts, forcing debt into the victim’s name, preventing work, hiding assets, refusing to pay bills, manipulating disclosure, draining joint funds, weaponising legal costs, or using court delay to exhaust the other party.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 expressly recognises economic abuse as part of domestic abuse. That recognition now needs to be reflected properly in financial proceedings.

The reform question: should domestic abuse affect the financial outcome?

The Government is asking a direct question: should domestic abuse more readily be taken into account when the court distributes assets in financial remedy and cohabitation cases?

This is not a small technical point. It goes to the heart of fairness.

The court does not need to turn every financial remedy case into a conduct trial. That would be dangerous and unworkable. But the current threshold is too blunt. Domestic abuse should not have to be spectacular, shocking or unusual before it is treated as financially relevant.

Cohabitants: the biggest practical reform for millions of families

The consultation also proposes reform for cohabitants. This is crucial because there is no such thing as “common law marriage” in England and Wales, no matter how long a couple has lived together or whether they have children.

At present, separating cohabitants often have to rely on complex property and trust law. That may be completely inadequate where one partner has given up work, cared for children, paid into the home informally, or been economically controlled.

The Government notes that over 3.5 million couples live together without being married or in a civil partnership. Cohabiting families are no longer unusual. They are part of ordinary family life. Yet the law still leaves many people exposed when the relationship ends.

Domestic abuse and cohabitation: why the current gap is dangerous

The consultation recognises that limited legal protection can make it harder for victim-survivors to leave abusive relationships. If a person has no clear claim to the home, no financial safety net, no access to funds, and children to care for, leaving may feel impossible.

This is especially serious where the abuse is economic. A perpetrator may control the tenancy, mortgage, savings, benefits, bank accounts, car, phone contract or household bills. The survivor may be technically “free to leave” but practically unable to do so.

Inheritance rights for cohabitants: the forgotten crisis

The consultation also considers inheritance provision for cohabitants. At present, if someone dies without a will, their unmarried partner does not automatically inherit under the intestacy rules.

That can create devastating outcomes. A surviving partner may have lived with the deceased for years, raised children with them, contributed to the household, and still be left with no automatic inheritance. Their only route may be a court claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

Qualifying nuptial agreements: prenups and postnups may become more powerful

The consultation also invites views on qualifying nuptial agreements. These would allow couples to make binding financial arrangements before or during marriage or civil partnership, subject to safeguards.

This could increase certainty. But it also raises serious domestic abuse concerns. A nuptial agreement signed under pressure, financial dependency, coercive control, pregnancy, immigration insecurity, or fear of homelessness is not genuine autonomy.

What this means for litigants in person

This consultation is not just for lawyers. It matters profoundly for litigants in person.

Financial remedy proceedings are already difficult for represented parties. For people without solicitors, they can be overwhelming. Form E, disclosure, questionnaires, deficiencies, valuations, pensions, settlement offers, FDRs, final hearings and enforcement are procedurally demanding.

Add domestic abuse, economic abuse or coercive control into that process, and the imbalance can become severe.

• A survivor may not know what financial documents exist.
• They may not have access to bank statements, mortgage information, pension details or business records.
• They may be frightened of challenging non-disclosure.
• They may be pressured to settle quickly.
• They may be accused of being “difficult” when they are simply trying to obtain basic financial transparency.
• They may leave the process with an order that looks tidy on paper but is impossible to enforce in real life.

The key consultation questions survivors should consider answering

If you are responding to the consultation, these are some of the most important issues to address:

What reform must not do

Reform must not simply produce a tidier statute for lawyers while leaving survivors with the same practical barriers.

It must not:

• treat domestic abuse as a side issue;
• force survivors to relitigate trauma unnecessarily;
• allow perpetrators to weaponise disclosure and delay;
• create rights on paper that are too expensive to enforce;
• ignore the reality of litigants in person;
• pretend economic abuse ends once the parties separate;
• allow nuptial agreements to override fairness where there was coercion or vulnerability.

What good reform should look like

A genuinely fair system should do the following:

• Define the purpose of financial remedies clearly so ordinary people can understand what the court is trying to achieve.
• Make domestic abuse financially relevant where it has caused vulnerability, debt, dependency, loss of earning capacity or litigation disadvantage.
• Improve disclosure enforcement so non-disclosure has real consequences.
• Protect cohabitants and children where family life has created financial dependency or vulnerability.
• Strengthen procedural protections so survivors are not cross-examined, pressured or worn down through the financial process.
• Make enforcement faster and cheaper because an unenforced order is not justice.
• Support litigants in person with clearer forms, guidance and accessible explanations.

Why JSH Law is watching this closely

At JSH Law, we work with litigants in person who are often trying to navigate the family court system without full representation. Many are dealing with urgent documents, safeguarding allegations, domestic abuse, coercive control, financial pressure, child arrangements disputes or difficult procedural steps.

This consultation is important because it acknowledges something victim-survivors have been saying for years: the court process can be used as part of the abuse.

That does not mean every financial remedy case involves abuse. It does not mean every allegation should automatically change the outcome. But it does mean the system needs a more intelligent, evidence-led approach to the financial consequences of domestic abuse.

How to respond to the consultation

The consultation closes on 14 August 2026.

You can read the official consultation and respond here:

• GOV.UK: A Fairer End to Relationships
• Full consultation document
• Citizen Space response form
• Law Commission: Financial remedies scoping report

Final word

This consultation is not perfect. It is not reform yet. It is not a guarantee that the law will change in the way survivors need.

But it is significant.

The Government has placed domestic abuse, economic abuse, cohabitation vulnerability, financial remedy reform and enforcement on the same page. That is a major shift. The task now is to make sure the voices of those who have actually lived through the system are not drowned out by technical legal debate.

If the family justice system is serious about fairness, it must stop treating money as separate from abuse. In many cases, money is the mechanism of abuse. And after separation, the financial remedy process can become the arena where that abuse continues.

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Family law outcomes are fact-specific. If you are in immediate danger, contact the police or a specialist domestic abuse service.