header-logo header-logo

04 August 2023 / David Burrows
Issue: 8036 / Categories: Features , Family , Divorce , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Couples' agreements: settlement matters

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll