A fairer end to relationships consultation

Closes 14 Aug 2026

This service needs cookies enabled.

Part 1: Reforming the law of financial remedies on divorce

1. Do you agree with the government’s view that the objective for the sharing principle is to give equal benefit to the parties of matrimonial property by dividing matrimonial assets equally?

Please give reasons for your answer.

2. Do you agree with the government’s view that the court should consider the sharing principle as the starting point and consider the needs principle where equal sharing would not allow needs to be met?

Please give reasons for your answer.

3. Do you agree with the government’s view that it should codify the distinctions between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in Standish?

Please give reasons for your answer.

4. Should the court be able to consider how the property has been used, shared and treated by the parties, and over what time period, when deciding whether non-matrimonial property has become matrimonial?

Please give reasons for your answer.

5. Do you agree with the government’s view that the overarching objective of the court when making a financial order should be to reach a fair outcome through the application of the sharing and needs principles?

Please give reasons for your answer.

6. Do you agree with the government’s view that the objective for meeting needs should be to enable both parties to transition to independence, as far as resources allow?

Please give reasons for your answer.

7. Do you agree with the government’s view that the court should apply the needs objective using a three-stage hierarchical approach?

Please give reasons for your answer.

8. Do you agree that the stages should be focused on the following:

1) first consideration to the welfare of any children of the family;

2) capital and income needs, including their housing and pension needs in keeping with the standard of living during the marriage;

3) where resources allow, discretionary need, in keeping with the standard of living during the marriage?

Please give reasons for your answer.

9. Do you agree with the government’s view that there should be a checklist of factors that the court must consider when applying the needs and sharing objective?

Please give reasons for your answer.

10. Do you agree that this checklist should include an explicit reference to any disadvantage suffered as a result of the relationship?

Please give reasons for your answer.

11. Do you think that domestic abuse should more readily be taken into account in relation to the distribution of assets by the court in financial remedy and cohabitation proceedings?

Please give reasons for your answer.

12. To what extent should domestic abuse, if established, influence the court’s decision-making in financial remedy and cohabitation proceedings?
13. If domestic abuse were more routinely considered in financial remedy and cohabitation proceedings, how do you think this should affect the division of assets between parties? For example, what principles should guide how misconduct is reflected in financial outcomes and how should this be applied in practice?
14. If courts were more readily able to take domestic abuse into account in financial remedy and cohabitation proceedings, what impact do you think this would have on those proceedings (for example, the length of cases, evidential requirements, costs to parties and the overall experience of victim-survivors)?
15. Do you agree that the language currently used to describe the threshold for considering misconduct in financial remedy proceedings (sometimes referred to as the “gasp factor”) is inappropriate and should be replaced?

Please give reasons for your answer.

16. What forms of behaviour do you think should be considered as “misconduct”?
17. What sort of impact do you think misconduct should have on a financial remedies claim or a cohabitation claim?
18. If you believe misconduct should be more readily taken into account by the court, do you think misconduct which has financial consequences should be treated by the court in the same way as misconduct without financial consequences?

Please give reasons for your answer.

19. Do you agree with the government’s view that the court should specifically be required to give consideration to pensions accrued during the marriage and pension needs when making financial orders?

Please give reasons for your answer.

20. Do you consider that these proposed safeguards will ensure individuals understand the consequences of their agreement and provide sufficient protection against coercion?

Please give reasons for your answer.

21. Do you agree with the government’s view that when considering meeting “needs” under the qualifying nuptial agreement model proposed, this should exclude discretionary needs, in the same way as proposed for cohabitants?

Please give reasons for your answer.

22. Beyond housing, capital, income and pension, are there any other elements that you think should be included in, or excluded from, the assessment of “needs” within the context of qualifying nuptial agreements?
23. Do you agree with the government’s view that the court should consider a pre-marital cohabiting relationship as counting towards the length of a marriage, where that relationship moves seamlessly from cohabitation to marriage?

Please give reasons for your answer.

24. Which factors, as outlined by the Law Commission’s 2007 report, do you think the court should take into account when assessing whether there has been seamless cohabitation prior to the marriage? Tick all that apply: