Under Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the court must consider a range of factors when deciding how assets should be divided on divorce.
One of those factors is the parties’ conduct. However, the courts will only consider conduct, including domestic abuse, if it would be inequitable to disregard it.
In practical terms, this has set a deliberately high threshold. Domestic abuse has historically only influenced the financial outcome where it has produced a clear and measurable financial consequence, for example, where one party’s actions have directly diminished the family’s resources.
Recent developments
Two recent High Court judgements from Mr Justice Cusworth suggest that we are perhaps seeing a shift in the court’s approach to considering conduct in financial remedy cases.
In LP v M [2024], Mr Justice Cusworth examined allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour within the broader financial context of the marriage. The court acknowledged that abuse is not confined to physical violence and that sustained patterns of control can influence a person’s earning capacity, financial independence and ability to engage effectively in litigation. The court explicitly pushed back on the approach that financial consequence is a necessary ingredient when considering conduct. Mr Justice Cusworth made it clear that the impact of coercive control may be hard to measure but that doesn’t mean it has no impact, and ignoring it risks real unfairness to victims.
A similar approach was taken by Mr Justice Cusworth in Wei-Lyn Loh v Ardal Loh-Gronager [2024], where the court looked carefully at serious allegations of financial abuse and litigation misconduct. The judgment reinforced that controlling or coercive behaviour may, in appropriate cases, meet the “inequitable to disregard” test, particularly where they have had a material impact on the victim’s economic position or ability to litigate fairly. In this case, the parties had entered into a pre-nuptial agreement and Mr Justice Cusworth made clear that conduct can be relevant even when a nuptial agreement is present.
Mr Justice Cusworth’s approach indicates a willingness from the courts to apply conduct more robustly and signals a potential change in approach. These decisions do not change the law, and the threshold remains high. However, they show a growing understanding that domestic abuse can have long-term economic consequences, even if those consequences are not immediately obvious.
Resolution’s recommendations
Over the past few years, the family law organisation Resolution has been calling for changes to better support survivors of domestic abuse in financial cases. Its proposals include:
- Stronger case management to deal with non-disclosure and litigation misconduct early on.
- Clear recognition that domestic abuse should exempt survivors from being required to use mediation or other forms of non-court dispute resolution.
- Better training for legal professionals.
- Wider access to legal aid.
- Improved access to interim financial support during proceedings.
- Greater use of costs orders where court proceedings are used as a form of continued abuse.
- Clearer guidance for judges and practitioners.
The aim is to ensure that the financial process does not unintentionally disadvantage those who have already experienced abuse.
Government consultation and what lies ahead
The Government has announced a consultation on financial remedy law, expected in Spring 2026. This review may consider how domestic abuse is treated in financial cases and whether the current law remains suitable.
It is too early to say whether this will lead to reform but there is increasing recognition, both within the courts and the profession, that the financial impact of domestic abuse can be complex and long-lasting. The direction of travel suggests a system that is becoming more aware of those realities, even within the constraints of the existing law.
