Plans to give two million cohabiting partners similar rights to married couples have been shelved by ministers.

The surprise move came after two years of work by the Law Commission which, at the behest of the Government, drew up detailed proposals on how the law should change.

Lawyers and some ministers have criticised the current absence of legal rights as being unfair to women in particular who are often left with nothing when a relationship breaks down.

But Bridget Prentice, the Justice Minister, said that she was taking no further action and would instead wait to see the results of legal changes made in Scotland.

The Law Commission said last summer that couples who split up after living together but not marrying should be able to make claims against one another if one has gained or lost out financially as a result of the relationship. It did not specify a minimum period of cohabitation for the new rights but said that it would be difficult to prove financial loss if the relationship was short-lived.

Ms Prentice said that the Scottish Executive intended to research what costs arise from its reforms. “The Government proposes to await the outcome of this research and extrapolate from it the likely cost to this jurisdiction of bringing into effect the scheme proposed by the Law Commission and the likely benefits it will bring,” she said in a written statement to Parliament.

“For the time being, therefore, the Government will take no further action,” she added.

Resolution, a group of leading family lawyers, criticised the move and predicted continued distress and hardship for cohabiting couples if their relationship ends.

“The Government is seriously out of step with public opinion on this issue if it does not act now,” Jane Craig, a member of the Cohabitation Committee of Resolution, said. “The British Social Attitudes Survey revealed that nine out of ten people think that a cohabiting partner should have a right to financial provision if their relationship is a long-term one, includes children and has involved prioritising one partner’s career.

“The present law creates real injustice for many people. Our members frequently see people who face financial hardship and even homelessness as a result of the current law. Any further delay inevitably means further injustice for some people.”

The British Social Attitudes Survey revealed widespread confusion about what protection couples who live together have under the law, with 51 per cent of people still believing wrongly that cohabiting couples have rights as “common law” spouses.

A government-funded awareness campaign in 2004 clearly failed to get the message across sufficiently that living together does not provide cohabiting couples with financial rights if their relationship ends, even if they have lived together for many years and have had children together. Instead, these people face increased insecurity at the end of the relationship.

The Law Commission was unavailable for comment yesterday but when the proposals were released last summer Stuart Bridge, the commissioner responsible for the plans, said: “The law that currently applies to resolve property disputes between such couples on separation is unclear and complicated, and it can produce unfair outcomes. This causes serious hardship not only to cohabitants themselves but also to their children.” A Law Commission report said that most couples who live together believe wrongly that they are entitled to a share of the assets when a relationship breaks down. However, cohabiting couples have very little legal protection if the relationship ends.

Your guide through the minefield of marriage

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• Are top lawyers worth their huge fees?
• Solicitor forced to retire claims 'ageism'
• Drug case failure may be last straw for SFO