header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Couples' agreements: settlement matters

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

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
Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Firm grows real estate team with tenth partner hire this financial year

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Police, contempt and the rule of law
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
NLJ this week: When your brain signs the contract
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
NLJ this week: Comparators—how close is close enough?
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
NLJ this week: Domicile—more than where you live
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
NLJ this week: Arbitration’s fast lane—with guardrails
Early determination is no longer a novelty in arbitration. In NLJ this week, Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at Lexis+, charts the global embrace of summary disposal powers, now embedded in the Arbitration Act 1996 and mirrored worldwide. Tribunals may swiftly dismiss claims with ‘no real prospect of succeeding’, but only if fairness is preserved
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll