header-logo header-logo

‘Wholesale’ reform proposed for divorce finance

23 December 2024
Categories: Legal News , Divorce
printer mail-detail
Prenups could be made binding along with sweeping reform of financial remedies law, under Law Commission proposals

The Commission published a scoping report, Financial remedies on divorce and dissolution, last week, suggesting four possible models for reform. The Commissioners found the lack of cohesive legal framework and broad discretion of the courts in this area of law results in uncertainty which tends to feed dispute rather than settlement.

Law Commissioner, Professor Nick Hopkins said: ‘People should be able to understand what the law says about how their finances will be divided.’

Will MacFarlane, family law partner at Kingsley Napley, said: ‘The Law Commission recommended that the government should legislate to make nuptial agreements binding a decade ago and the government did nothing.

‘In the face of complete inertia from the government, judges have done their best to fill the legislative vacuum by consistently upholding nuptial agreements if they have been entered into properly. As a profession, we would welcome the government finally getting on with this and legislating.

‘This will bring clarity to couples wishing to avoid costly and contentious financial proceedings on divorce which can only be a good thing.’

The report suggests, first, codification to bring ‘settled case law principles on financial remedies into statutory form in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973’. This would be the ‘simplest approach to reform’, the report states. Pre-nups would be upheld where fair but would not be binding.

Second, codification-plus would go further and include reform on pre-nups, spousal maintenance, treatment of pensions and other areas not yet settled by case law.

Third, a guided discretion model would set out purposes and principles of the law while retaining some judicial discretion, as followed in Scotland and New Zealand.

Fourth, a default regime imposes a set of rules from the date of the marriage along with the possibility for couples to agree binding nuptial agreements. This model, which is used in some European and Commonwealth jurisdictions, would ‘require wholesale reform of the law’.

Categories: Legal News , Divorce
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll