header-logo header-logo

Couples' agreements: settlement matters

04 August 2023 / David Burrows
Issue: 8036 / Categories: Features , Family , Divorce , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
132788
In the first of a two-part series, David Burrows puts the case for pre-conditional order approval of financial settlements
  • Acts from 1969 and 1973 allow parties to divorce or dissolution proceedings to submit their agreement to the court for an opinion on the couple’s settlement.
  • The Family Procedure Rules Committee has done nothing to bring this into effect, and couples can find that, until they have a conditional order, their agreement can still be upset.

The mediation movement has been with us since the late 1970s. The Bristol Courts Family Conciliation Service, the first mediation service, opened its doors in 1979. Ten years before that, s 7 (in force from 1 January 1971) of the Divorce Reform Act 1969 (DRA 1969) came into operation. That s 7 is what is still in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and has its parallel in s 43 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004). Both sections give the Family Procedure Rules Committee (FPRC) power to allow parties to divorce

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll