When a marriage
breaks down questions of finance and property are inevitably of fundamental importance. It
is possible for certain financial and property matters to be determined independently of
divorce proceedings but in the vast majority of cases financial and property issues are
dealt with in a divorce or a judicial separation since the powers of the Court in that
context are more widely drawn and flexible than under separate statutes.
The Court has power to deal with
certain financial claims before a Decree has been pronounced. These consist primarily of
maintenance pending suit and interim periodical payments for the claimant or a child of
the family. The Courts recognise that in many cases there will be the need to provide
provisional or temporary financial support for one party or the other and also children
before the Decree is granted and before final financial and property orders can be made.
Once a Decree has been pronounced
the Court then has power to make orders for full financial support (commonly called
maintenance or periodical payments) for the Applicant (who will usually be the wife) and
any children of the family. With regard to the latter, the Courts powers are
somewhat more limited since the Child Support Act came into force with some exceptions.
The Child Support Agency has basic jurisdiction to determine the amount of maintenance to
be paid for children of the family but the Court does retain a jurisdiction to decide the
amount of maintenance for children where the parties consent to the Court exercising that
power, usually in the context of an overall financial settlement.
Further Orders that the Court can
make include a lump sum payment to be made by one party to the other or for periodical
payments to be secured in such manner as the Court sees fit. The Court can also order lump
sums to be made for the benefit of the child of the family although it is more rare for
this sort of order to be made. The Court can order a property to be sold and order a
transfer or adjustment of property between the parties. The Court can also order a
settlement of property to be made by one part to the other or vary an existing settlement
which may exist between them.
An Application for financial and
property Orders in divorce or judicial separation is termed an Application for Ancillary
Relief, that is for orders ancillary to the divorce which relate to finance and property.
The manner in which the Court approaches an application for such orders is laid down in
Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Under that section the Judge who decides
the application has discretion as to the manner in which he will exercise the powers of
the Court, if indeed he decides to exercise them at all in a given case. In dealing with
the matter he is obliged to have regard to all circumstances of the case, but first
consideration must be given to the welfare of any child of the family who is below the age
of eighteen.
Other factors which the Court has
to take into account include the respective financial positions of the two parties
including resources which they are likely to receive in the foreseeable future. This
includes any earning capacity which the Court considers it would be reasonable for one
party to acquire. Other factors include the financial needs and obligations of the
parties, the duration of the marriage and the age of the parties, the standard of living
enjoyed by the family before the breakdown and contributions made by each party to the
welfare of the family. In rare cases the Court will also take account of the conduct of
the parties if that conduct is such that it would be inequitable to disregard it. It is a
matter for the Judge to weigh the relative merits and strengths of each of the above
factors in a particular case.
Since the Pensions
Act 1996 the Court has had the power to make an Order earmarking the
Pension entitlements of one spouse in favour of the other. This involves
earmarking a proportion of the Pension fund in favour of one party against
the other which means that any part of the Pension entitlements (including
death in service benefits, Pension receipts, lump sum commutations or
other benefits) can be earmarked to provide Pension benefits for the
Applicant spouse as and when the Pension holder spouse actually retires or
the benefits come into effect.
As from 1st
December 2000 the Court has also had the power to make a Pension Sharing
or Pension Splitting Order. Such an Order is however only available to
people commencing divorce or nullity proceedings on or after the 1st
December 2000. Very simply, Pension sharing enables the Court to split or
share a Pension at the time of the divorce so that the Applicant spouse
either becomes a member of the Pension holder's scheme in her own right or
alternatively takes a transfer of a designated amount into her own Pension
Scheme. A Pension Sharing Order is irrevocable i.e. it cannot be varied
whereas an Earmarking Order is always open to variation. As with the other
Orders that the Court can make in the context of the divorce, a Pension
order can be made only after the pronouncement of Decree Nisi but will not
in fact take effect until the Decree has been made Absolute. The Court is
obliged to take account of any views expressed by the Pension Fund
Trustees and will insist upon them being notified of the Application and
being given an opportunity to make representations to the Court should
they see fit.
The procedure for
presenting a claim for financial and property Orders commences with an
Application being filed at the Court in Form A detailing the financial
provisions being sought. The Court then fixes a date for the first Court
Hearing, referred to as the First Appointment, which will be between 12
and 16 weeks ahead. This creates a time frame in which the case is to run
and which cannot be altered without the permission of the Court. During
that period of time several documents need to be completed and filed, the
main one being a Financial Statement known as Form E. Both parties are
required to complete a Form E setting out full details as to their
financial circumstances supported by documentary evidence. There is a duty
upon each party to give full and frank disclosure of their financial
circumstances and a failure to do so may result in any Order made by the
Court subsequently being set aside. The purpose of the First Appointment
is to allow the Court to monitor the Application and its progress from an
early stage, to limit the issues and to save costs. Requests for further
information and documentation will be considered at that Hearing in the
light of the issues and circumstances of the case and consideration
given to whether any valuations of assets are required. The Court will
also decide how the Application should proceed from then on and usually it
is listed for a further Hearing referred to as the Financial Dispute
Resolution Appointment. The purpose of the FDR Appointment is for the
Court to guide the parties towards settlement by exploring with them the
common ground and attempting to ensure that neither party has any
unrealistic expectations. Both parties are expected to have carefully
considered their respective positions by the date of the Financial Dispute
Resolution Appointment and to come to Court with a view to settling the
matter. If no settlement can be reached at the FDR Appointment then the
Court will make any necessary further Directions and fix a date for
a Final Hearing. That Hearing is an informal and private one in the
District Judge's Chambers and evidence is given orally by each party. The
Court will then take into account the factors contained in Section 25 of
the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and will determine the issues and make the
final Order.
The overriding
objective of the Rules relating to Ancillary Relief Applications is to
enable the Court to deal with cases justly. This includes ensuring that
the parties are on an equal footing, minimising expense, dealing with
cases in a manner proportionate to the amount of money involved, taking
into consideration the importance of the case, the complexities of the
issues and the financial positions of each party, ensuring that cases are
dealt with expeditiously and fairly and allotting to it the appropriate
share of the Court's resources whilst taking into account the need to
allot resources to other cases. The Rules require both parties to a case
to help the Court to further the overriding objective. The hope is that
fully contested Hearings can become the exception rather than the rule and
that the parties can be assisted by the Court in achieving a settlement
without the necessity for a full Hearing.
Financial and
property orders can only become enforceable and binding when a Decree
Absolute is pronounced in the divorce. If the full contested hearing is to
take place concerning financial and property matters this often is not
reached until well after the six week period for the obtaining of the
Decree Absolute. If financial and property issues are still outstanding,
many practitioners postpone the obtaining of the Decree Absolute until
financial and property issues have been decided. The making of the Decree
Absolute does have implications for certain financial assets and issues
including for example pensions, where a change in status which would be
caused by the Decree Absolute would dramatically affect one party's
entitlement to share in a pension. It is for this reason that it is
preferred by many practitioners to leave to making of the Decree Absolute
until financial matters have been finally determined.
As stated,
financial issues can only be determined against a background of full and
frank disclosure of financial assets and details by the parties. If either
party fails to make such disclosure, orders can be made compelling
documents to be produced and information to be provided and these orders
can be backed up by Court sanctions if such disclosure is still withheld.
It is also possible for the Court to make orders in the context of
financial proceedings regarding assets which one party may have
transferred, sold or attempted to deal with in order to impede or
frustrate the Court's powers in relation to the claim. If necessary the
Court can grant an injunction preventing any transactions taking place.
The Court can also revoke any transactions previously made if the Court is
satisfied that that transaction was made with a view to defeating the
claim for financial relief. If such disposition is found to have taken
place less than 3 years before the date of application the Court can
presume that the disposition was intended to defeat the claim for
financial relief. However insofar as such a transaction may have taken
place involving a third party who acted in good faith and without notice
of any intention to defeat the claim, the Court has to take account of the
rights of those third parties in dealing with the matter.
|