UK – SOUTH WEST Trends and Developments Contributed by: Will MacFarlane, Sarah Dodds, John Ebenezer and Jennifer Headon, Birketts LLP
Decision and practical effect? The husband was awarded 100% of the remaining net sale proceeds of the former matrimonial home to enable him to rehouse with the children. While this decision does not lower the threshold for conduct to be considered, it does show that in excep ‑ tional circumstances judges will adjust the division of capital where there is a measurable financial impact of the abuse. This should encourage practitioners to consider carefully pleaded conduct cases where there is both serious wrongdoing and a real financial impact flowing from that conduct. However, the recent case of LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473 highlights judicial concern about viewing abusive behaviour through the framework of financial impact, where Cusworth J held, “I consider that there is a real risk of unfairness to victims of violent or coercive controlling behaviour, if the lack of readily quantifiable financial loss prevents the courts from even considering the fairness of taking their assailant’s behaviour into account in determining the outcome of a financial remedy application.” How About Developments Relating to Children? NCDR NCDR changes are impacting private children law applications too, with changes to the FPR directly impacting the way in which parents should be think ‑ ing about litigation. In AM v RF [2024] EWFC, a mother was ordered to pay the father’s costs for failing to meaningfully engage in mediation regarding child arrangements, which should be warning to prospec ‑ tive litigants. Practitioners should be advising clients to keep NCDR options under review for the lifetime of their case and to properly engage. The NCDR changes also seem to have breathed new life into the children arbitration scheme, which has to date lagged behind financial arbitration. While there are still practical issues to overcome in children cases, where litigants and prac ‑ titioners have often been concerned about using arbi ‑ tration in cases where there are allegations of domes ‑ tic abuse, there has seemingly been an uptick in use. Most arbitrators now advise that it is possible to arbi ‑ trate these types of cases and that this route can in fact be more empowering and safer for litigants than proceedings taking place within the overstretched
be considered prior to any significant transfers of wealth. • Mid-range cases: Needs will still dominate. Even where assets are non-matrimonial, courts may deploy them to meet reasonable needs; pleas for sharing should be carefully distinguished from needs arguments. The judgment in MRU v ECR [2025] EWFC 218 (B) reinforced the exceptional threshold for running a suc ‑ cessful conduct argument. Resolution had published a report entitled ‘Domes ‑ tic Abuse in Financial Remedy Proceedings’ in late 2024 which included recommendations as to how the Family Court can better recognise, evaluate and pro ‑ tect victims of domestic abuse. It emphasised that abusers frequently use financial manipulation – such as withholding funds, hiding assets, delaying pro ‑ ceedings, breaching court orders or intimidating the other party – as part of patterns of coercive control. Courts, it said, must treat these behaviours more seri‑ ously when assessing fairness and needs. This has increased calls for reform of a system in which all too often those representing victims of abuse have to encourage their clients to ignore abuse and focus on needs arguments. In MRU v ECR [2025] EWFC 218 (B), Deputy District Judge Rose decided that the wife’s conduct satis ‑ fied the “gross and obvious” test and that it would be “inequitable to disregard” that conduct. The facts? It had been a long marriage of around 20 years with three young children. The wife had been convicted of sustained domestic abuse, including violence, threats and coercive control, and had served a significant custodial sentence. The husband was the primary carer for the children following child arrangements proceedings which had concluded with the wife being permitted only indirect supervised contact. The asset base was limited, with little beyond the net proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home and modest pensions on each side. There were also significant debts on both sides.
277 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook