Preservation of assets

Securing assets

Where there are concerns that a party intends to dispose of assets in a way that will defeat a claim for financial provision, or has already done so, immediate action may need to be taken to secure the assets. There are various ways in which this may be done:

•
under section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) or the equivalent Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004) provisions
•
by an application for an interim order under the provisions of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 20, or
•
under the inherent jurisdiction of the court

Such applications may be expensive and high risk. Consideration should be given to other available options and the value of the assets in question in the context of the overall value of the parties assets, ie whether the applicant's claim may be satisfied from other assets.

See Practice Notes: Interim orders under FPR 2010, Pt 20 and Procedure for an interim remedy under FPR 2010, Pt 20.

Where a respondent in family proceedings is

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

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Family weekly highlights—28 August 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes details of the Family Public Law release notes updating Form C110a case name section. Analyses of a rare High Court decision regarding sham trusts and deprivation of liberty orders and choice of accommodation are included. Judgments on summary return orders under the 1980 Hague Convention are also considered.

High Court confirms deprivation of liberty order cannot compel choice of accommodation (Kent County Council v The Mother and others)

Local Government analysis: The High Court dismissed the local authority’s application to deprive a 17-year-old child’s liberty for a further six months to compel their choice of accommodation. The court affirmed that ‘section 20 accommodation is not intended to be used coercively’ and determined the local authority had sought ‘to take a young person into care when the statutory scheme does not permit them to do so’. This case provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles and relevant case law concerning sections 20 and 100 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), re-affirms the importance of obtaining valid and informed parental consent with reference to section 20 accommodation, and provides a working analysis of the ‘best interests’ decision regarding depriving a child of their liberty. Written by Nicola Wheater, associate at HCR Law.

Family Public Law (FPL) release notes updating Form C110a case name section

The HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) FPL service team commissioned user research to understand how the Form C110a application journey may be improved. The design changes are being released in stages, with a release note to accompany each change. As part of the user research, the judiciary requested that case names be standardised and a standardised naming convention has been approved by the FPL judicial working group with a release date of 28 August 2025.

Rare finding as to sham trusts results in costs orders

Family analysis: In a series of three judgments, His Honour Judge Hess (sitting as a deputy High Court judge), in complex and high value divorce proceedings, made findings of a sham trust against the husband, who had tried to maintain that it was a legitimate trust set up to preserve the very considerable wealth the couple had built up during the marriage. The judge went on to award the wife a lump sum of £15m and to extend his previous order for the appointment of receivers against the husband’s corporate assets by reason of his persistent, wilful and continuing non-compliance with previous orders. Jane Keir, partner at Kingsley Napley LLP, examines the issues.