header-logo header-logo

Return of the divorced

19 June 2015
Issue: 7657 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Recovering economy spurs rise in claims for more money

The number of divorced people returning to court to claim more money from their ex has more than doubled in the past year.

Some 29,060 people made a post-divorce financial claim in 2014, compared to 14,690 people in 2013, according to figures collected by law firm Hugh James.

The reason many ex-spouses return to court is that couples often fail to obtain a court order to formalise their financial agreement when they divorce, for example, where they reach their own informal settlement, according to Hugh James. Without this order, an ex can bring a new claim even years after their marriage was dissolved. Earlier this year, for example, the impoverished ex-wife of the multi-millionaire founder of Ecotricity brought a claim against him more than 20 years after they divorced, even though he was a penniless hippy living in a van during their marriage, in Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14.

During the recession, couples often preferred to make an informal division of assets in order to keep costs down. The number of claims brought outside the divorce process also dipped, to just 3,620 in 2011. Without a binding legal agreement, however, there is no time limit on one partner pursuing a further financial claim.

Meanwhile, the recovering economy has made such disputes more likely.

Charlotte Leyshon, associate at Hugh James, says: “The final step of having an agreement reached through mediation or arbitration formalised and adopted as a court order is crucial.

“Failure to do so leaves the door open to an unexpected future financial claim. Claims over pensions are a common reason for ex-spouses going back to court after a divorce. Since they are complex and not always relevant to immediate financial needs, they often don’t get the attention they should.”

 
Issue: 7657 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll