Despite a nationwide effort to recognize the impact of domestic abuse, family courts remain reluctant to consider such abuse when determining financial settlements in divorce cases. In November 2024, the University of Bristol released a supplementary report on domestic abuse in financial remedy cases, following their Fair Shares report published in November 2023.
Domestic Abuse and Matrimonial Finances: A Neglected Factor
Grant Cameron, Chair of Resolution, introduced the Resolution Report on domestic abuse in financial remedy proceedings with a powerful statement:
“Whilst we continue to ignore the elephant in the room, we fail to protect some of the most vulnerable litigants in the family justice system.”
How Courts Currently Consider Domestic Abuse in Financial Remedy Cases
Under Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973), courts will only consider conduct, including domestic abuse, if it would be inequitable to disregard it. In practice, this typically means abuse is only considered when it has caused financial consequences.
Case Examples:
- H v H [2005]: The husband was imprisoned for 12 years for attempting to murder his wife in front of their children. Due to the severity of the abuse, the court awarded the wife the majority of the matrimonial assets.
- DP v EP [2023]: The wife concealed financial transactions from her illiterate husband, resulting in a 53% asset award to the husband and 75% of his legal costs paid by the wife.
- N v J [2024]: The court clarified that while a financial consequence is not legally required to consider conduct under Section 25(2)(g), it remains a common factor in most reported cases.
Although the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 broadened the definition of domestic abuse, it did not amend the statutory definition of conduct within financial remedy proceedings.
University of Bristol’s Findings on Domestic Abuse in Financial Remedy Cases
The University of Bristol’s report highlighted several connections between domestic abuse and unfair financial settlements for victims. Key findings included:
- Economic Disadvantage: Female survivors often entered divorce in a more precarious financial position than other women, resulting in limited post-divorce financial security.
- Lack of Legal Representation: Only 16% of female survivors and 19% of male survivors received legal aid, with over 50% of survivors self-funding legal representation or mediation.
- Post-Separation Hardship: Female survivors were more likely to be on Universal Credit and have lower household incomes up to five years after divorce.
Resolution’s Recommendations for Change
Following the University of Bristol’s report, Resolution called for a cultural shift within the family law profession to better support domestic abuse survivors. Their recommendations include:
- Enhanced Case Management: Utilizing courts’ powers to tackle non-disclosure at the outset.
- Recognition of Domestic Abuse: Explicitly acknowledging domestic abuse as a valid exemption from Non-Court Dispute Resolution, preventing survivors from facing unjust cost orders.
- Cultural Change: Promoting awareness and training among legal professionals.
- Improved Access to Legal Aid: Raising income and capital thresholds.
- Interim Maintenance Support: Ensuring survivors can access financial support during proceedings.
- Enforced Consequences: Imposing costs orders to deter perpetrators from using court proceedings for continued abuse.
- Practice Direction: Introducing guidelines to assist legal professionals in handling domestic abuse cases.
Government Response and Future Outlook
In a positive development, the government recently launched the Early Legal Advice Pilot Project (ELAP) to provide legal support to families in disputes and gather evidence on the impact of legal advice.
While no formal government action has been taken following these reports, it is hoped that Resolution’s recommendations will drive much-needed reform. However, as with any significant legal amendments, meaningful change may take time.