header-logo header-logo

13 September 2012
Issue: 7529 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Divorce: the great divide

Law Commission to focus on the division of matrimonial property

The Law Commission has launched a consultation on the “incomplete and uninformative” law of financial provision on divorce.

Its paper, Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements, published this week, looks at the extent to which one spouse should be required to meet the other’s financial needs on divorce, and how couples should divide property owned by one of the partners before the relationship or acquired as a gift or inheritance during the relationship.

The paper highlights how family judges are given statutory guidance on what orders they can make, but not on what those orders should aim to achieve. Instead, it proposes that the courts be told what is to be achieved by provision for needs. This could be: to restore parties to the financial position they would have been in were it not for the relationship (and choices made on career and childcare); to give parties support to transition to independence; or to give support for a limited period of time to create incentives for independence. Alternatively, financial support could be calculated using a formula.

The Commission says it does not plan to follow the Scottish system of placing a three-year limit on financial support following divorce.

It claims there is “evidence of regional inconsistencies, with different outcomes favoured in different courts”.

Professor Elizabeth Cooke, the Law Commissioner leading the project, says: “The current law creates too much potential for uncertainty and inconsistency.

“We are seeking consultees’ views on a range of short- and long-term reforms, with the aim of bringing as much certainty as possible to this difficult area of law.”

Laura Brown, solicitor and collaborative family lawyer at Forsters LLP, comments: “It is a welcome step that the Law Commission is now considering the uncertainty surrounding financial settlements on divorce/dissolution...It is, however, essential that certainty and clarity do not come at the expense of the courts’ current ability to tailor-make financial settlements for families, thus avoiding hardship and protecting the interests of any children, as one size does not fit all.”

The consultation is supplementary to the Commission’s consultation in January 2011 on marital property agreements. The Commission will publish a report next year with recommendations drawn from both consultations.

Issue: 7529 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers to be joined by leading family law set, 4 Brick Court, this summer

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Real estate and construction energy offering boosted by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Firm bolsters real estate team with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting
Plans to reduce jury trials risk missing the real problem in the criminal justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers argues the crown court backlog is fuelled not by juries but weak cases slipping through a flawed ‘50%’ prosecution test
Emerging technologies may soon transform how courts determine truth in deeply personal disputes. In this week's NLJ, Madhavi Kabra of 1 Hare Court and Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers explore how neurotechnology could reshape family law
A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law
The courts have drawn a firm line under attempts to extend arbitration appeals. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester highlights that if the High Court refuses permission under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, that is the end
back-to-top-scroll