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

To access this full article please fill the form below.
All fields are mandatory unless marked as 'Optional'.
If you already a subscriber to New Law Journal, please login here

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nick Vernon, Walkers Bermuda

NLJ Career Profile: Nick Vernon, Walkers Bermuda

Nick Vernon of Walkers on swapping Birmingham for Bermuda and building an employment practice by the sea

Bird & Bird—Christian Bartsch

Bird & Bird—Christian Bartsch

Global firm re-elects CEO for second term

Fletchers Group—Miriam Hall

Fletchers Group—Miriam Hall

Business appoints managing director of operational excellence

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

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

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
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
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
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
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
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
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll