header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
27 March 2026 / David Burrows
Issue: 8155 / Categories: Features , Family , Practice areas
printer mail-detail

More than two sides?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
245640
David Burrows explores examples where a non-party can join a case about who gets what in the divorce
  • When should a non-party be joined in family financial provision proceedings?
  • Identify preliminary issues, add any non-party relevant to that issue and order prior hearing as appropriate.
  • When is it ‘desirable’ to add; and will this result in a separate trial of a preliminary issue?

This article considers how preliminary issues in financial provision (divorce or civil partnership) proceedings can, or should, be dealt with; and, in appropriate cases, it deals with the adding of non-parties according to the extent of their interest.

The article is prompted in part by the February appeal decision of Ms Justice Henke in Archer v Archer & others [2026] EWHC 468 (Fam). Henke J has sent the case back for rehearing (for facts).

Addition of non-parties

When the then ‘new ancillary relief scheme’ was introduced in 1996 for Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) financial provision cases (a scheme adopted also for Civil Partnership

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
Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll