Will the introduction of no-fault divorce impact financial settlements? 

An instance where violent behaviour was disregarded within ancillary proceedings was in Hall vs Hall (1984), where the wife stabbed her husband during an argument and an award for maintenance was still made in her favour. 

It is clear then that should a party wish to make an argument concerning the misconduct of their former spouse, they must evaluate the merits of such an argument objectively, considering all of the circumstances. 

In addition, it has to be considered that the family courts will not make awards punitive in nature; a concept highlighted in the case of Hall vs Hall where a line was drawn between matters dealt with by the family courts and those accusations left to criminal proceedings.

 No-fault divorce will not bring any change to the way the law views people’s conduct during a marriage.

Financial conduct 

An example of where the court considered the financial conduct of the parties in depth was in the case of OG vs AG (2020). 

Here the court was primarily tasked with considering whether the husband’s decision to set up a company that directly competed with the company already jointly owned by the parties was conduct serious enough to affect the level of the financial award he would receive upon divorce. 

During proceedings, it was alleged that the husband’s actions had reduced the value of the jointly owned business by between 20 per cent and 40 per cent. In this case, the judge decided that the husband’s conduct should result in the value of his company being discounted by 30 per cent. 

Notably, in this case, the judge did not consider the husband's dishonesty as relevant and instead focused on the effect his actions practically had on the parties’ financial position. 

This case delved deeper into various other claims that the level of the husband’s award should be affected by his conduct, including his decision to sell multiple properties so that the proceeds be used for his gain and, correspondingly, his failure to disclose such transactions. 

Here, although the judge accepted the wife’s argument to have the value of these properties added back into the matrimonial pot, he did not accept that his failure to disclose his disposals would warrant the wife’s proposal of a division of two-thirds in her favour. 

In reality, the judge considered such a proposal unreasonable and took this into account when making an award for costs, awarding her only £328,020 when her total costs amounted to more than £600,000.