header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 August 2023 / David Burrows
Issue: 8036 / Categories: Features , Family , Divorce , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Couples' agreements: settlement matters

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll