header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
29 April 2021 / Jenny Duggan
Issue: 7930 / Categories: Features , Family , Divorce , Covid-19
printer mail-detail

COVID & divorce: in sickness & in health…

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
47528
Could COVID-19 set aside your divorce settlement? Jenny Duggan explores the possibilities
  • In the recent case of FRB v DCA [2020] EWHC 3696, the court held that the COVID-19 pandemic was not an unforeseeable event which entitled a husband to set aside the final financial remedy order made on his divorce.
  • This article examines the decision and considers whether the COVID-19 pandemic might be grounds for setting aside a financial remedy order if the situation is different to that in FRB v DCA.

A little over a year ago, Britain faced its first lockdown. The world pressed pause, and no one was quite sure what would happen next. This was no exception for couples who had reached a financial settlement in their divorce shortly before the pandemic took hold.

A final financial remedy order sets out the financial agreement reached between a divorcing couple. It represents the end of financial negotiations, and provides the finality most people need to move forward. For this

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Partner joins residential real estate team

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Social housing team announces partner appointment

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

Manchester’s online LLM has accelerated career progression for its graduates

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll