header-logo header-logo

Divorce: the great divide

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

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll