Consent orders

General principles of consent orders

The courts encourage parties to settle disputes amicably and, accordingly, it is open to them to compromise their claims for financial provision. However, the court will not simply rubber stamp any agreement that is reached as it retains a discretionary role under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and the corresponding provisions of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004). The court will therefore consider whether the agreement represents fair and proper financial provision for the parties in all the circumstances of the case and must be given specified information to enable it to exercise its discretion by making an order in accordance with the terms agreed by the parties. The court cannot exercise its powers without full details of both parties' circumstances.

See Practice Notes: Index of family standard orders and General principles of consent orders. See also: Financial consent orders—checklist.

The following Precedent letters may be sent by practitioners to their clients: Financial applications to the court—client guide and Financial disclosure and Form E—client guide.

Drafting the terms of a financial consent

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Family News

Monumental Supreme Court decision on matrimonialisation and sharing principle (Standish v Standish)

Family analysis: The Supreme Court’s much-anticipated judgment confirms unequivocally that the sharing principle does not apply to non-matrimonial property. Sharing of matrimonial property will usually be 50:50, though there may be a departure from equal division where justified. Non-matrimonial property typically has either a pre-marital origin, or, where it is received during the currency of the marriage, an external source (eg an inheritance). Title to an asset is expressly not determinative as to whether that asset is or is not matrimonial. Though non-matrimonial property may become matrimonial (ie ‘matrimonialisation’) this will depend on how the parties have been dealing with the asset and whether, over time, they have been treating that asset as shared between them. The concept of matrimonialisation is to be applied neither ‘widely’ nor ‘narrowly’ (contrary to what the Court of Appeal had held)—again, the enquiry should focus on how the parties have dealt with the asset. Where an asset is transferred from one spouse to another with the intention to save tax (as had occurred in the case), this will not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the decision to dismiss the wife’s appeal, though it did not wholly agree with the Court of Appeal’s reasoning. Pursuant to that decision (made on the sharing basis) the wife would be provided with circa £25m of the total assets figure of circa £132.6m, being half of the matrimonial assets figure of £50.48m. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the judgment.

View Family by content type :

Popular documents