header-logo header-logo

Divorce orders: breaking up & making up

02 December 2022 / David Burrows
Issue: 8005 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail
102824
Getting back together? David Burrows examines the setting aside of divorce orders where a couple has reconciled
  • Recission (setting aside) of divorce orders in the family court, in relation to divorce and civil partnership after the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020.

The facts of Cazalet v Abu-zalaf [2022] EWFC 119 (17 October 2022) by Mr Justice Mostyn are very unusual; but the case recalls the availability of recission (setting aside) of divorce orders in the family court, and that the court may have a residual power to rescind conditional orders where—in a jurisdiction which requires only a unilateral assertion of irretrievable breakdown—a couple have in fact become reconciled. And where the court finds that a couple are reconciled—whatever may have been said as to irretrievable breakdown on the filing of any dissolution application—has the court the power to rescind a conditional order?

Recission will be considered in relation to divorce and civil partnership after the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020) which, by amendments

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll