header-logo header-logo

Divorce rate falling but financial trickery among separating couples on the increase

19 November 2013
Issue: 7585 / Categories: Legal News , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

Results of Grant Thornton's annual matrimonial survey revealed

The divorce rate is falling due to the recession, new research has shown. 

However, couples are more likely to mislead each other by concealing their assets when they do separate—only 9% of family lawyers surveyed in Grant Thornton UK’s tenth annual matrimonial study have not had cases which revealed missing or concealed assets, compared to 20% last year and the year before.

Chris Clements, partner, forensic and investigation services, Grant Thornton UK, says: “Concealment is clearly a major issue as is illustrated by the recent public cases of Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34 and the ongoing Young v Young matter. 

“What is clear is that concealment, particularly in corporates, will require detailed analysis of the financial records in order to confirm the true position.”

Geraldine Morris, head of family at LexisPSL, says: “It's no surprise that divorces are being delayed in the current economic climate; with high cost of living, increasing property prices and low wage rises many families are feeling under significant financial pressure, a pressure that would be increased further if resources were stretched across two households rather than one. 

“Regarding concealment of assets, while the number of cases may not have increased, the ability to throw light on such assets was significantly eroded by the Court of Appeal in Imerman [2010] EWCA Civ 908 when it reversed the Hildebrand rules previously been relied on by parties and their advisers in cases where it was alleged that the spouse/civil partner would not fully disclose their financial circumstances and one party had taken and copied their spouses/civil partners documents—that practice is no longer permitted and a possible further consequence is the apparent increase of enforcement action in relation to a non-disclosing party, including imprisonment as in the high profile case of Young v Young.”

The 40s are the most separation-prone decade for couples, and the main reason for divorce is “falling out of love”.

Nearly one quarter of the 85 leading family lawyers taking part in the survey said their most pressing issue was litigants in person, which are increasingly common due to cuts in legal aid and public funding for advice centres.

Issue: 7585 / Categories: Legal News , Divorce , Family
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