Divorce (pre-DDSA 2020)

The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020) came into force on 6 April 2022. Proceedings issued by the court on or after 6 April 2022 are subject to the provisions of DDSA 2020 and the changes to procedure under the amended Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2020), SI 2010/2955. For further information, see Practice Note: Introduction to the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020.

Proceedings issued by the court on or before 5 April 2022 will continue to progress under the pre-DDSA 2020 law, whether submitted on the digital system or via paper forms. Such applications will not be impacted by the coming into force of DDSA 2020, nor the consequential changes to procedure. This document covers the position for proceedings issued prior to 6 April 2022.

Legislative changes have been made as a consequence of DDSA 2020, including to FPR 2010, Pt 7. To view a historic version of FPR 2010, Pt 7, and FPR 2010, Practice Direction 7A as applicable to proceedings issued prior to 6 April 2022, see below:

Legislative changes have also been made

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