header-logo header-logo

02 October 2019
Issue: 7858 / Categories: Legal News , Family , Divorce , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Fewer divorces but longer delays

Couples are postponing their divorce due to uncertainties caused by Brexit, family lawyers say.

According to the Family Court Quarterly Statistics for April to June 2019, published last week, 28,144 divorce petitions were made, a fall of 13%, while financial remedy cases fell 5%. Divorces take longer on average, up five weeks to 33 weeks for decree nisi and up three weeks to 58 weeks for Decree Absolute. Only 41% of care proceedings meet the 26-week target―the average time is 33 weeks.

Desmond O’Donnell, partner at Thomson Snell & Passmore, attributed the decrease in couples divorcing to ‘the uncertainty over Brexit, based on their perception that their (or their spouse’s) employment position is less secure now’.

Other reasons included ‘difficulty in selling the matrimonial home, which is often the most valuable asset’ and the fact many couples are choosing to cohabit rather than marry.

Lawyers also lamented increased delays in the family courts.

O’Donnell said cases are taking longer due to ‘various factors, including more individuals acting in person who often file incorrect paperwork, which adds to the court’s workload and delays the progress of the case; a decrease in the number of full time judges and/or an increase in the judge’s workload, all of which means it takes the court longer to process divorces or fix financial hearings’.

Deborah Jeff, partner at Seddons, said: ‘The figures reflect why frustration is being felt by court users―the court process is slowing down considerably.’

Laura Burrows, family associate at Collyer Bristow, said ‘Although the Family Court continues to move towards online divorce, it is under immense pressure. The regional divorce centres set up in 2015 are experiencing high volumes of work and staff shortages, and delays have reached unprecedented levels, impacting on divorcing couples who are unable to move on with their lives and facing increasing legal fees.’

Issue: 7858 / Categories: Legal News , Family , Divorce , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll