It is important to ensure that your financial settlement following divorce is recorded in an order of the court. Otherwise, financial claims could be brought against you, even years after your divorce, as there is no time limit on making such claims. It is only with a binding court order setting out the arrangements and dismissing each party’s claims that you can be certain to achieve finality between you and your spouse.

The court has power to make the following orders:

• Periodical payments (maintenance)
• Secured provision (maintenance that is charged against an asset)
• Lump sum (a cash payment or series of cash payments)
• Transfer of property (where legal ownership of an asset is transferred from one spouse to the other)
• (except upon decree of judicial separation) pension attachment or pension sharing order
• Agreed child maintenance orders, school fees orders and/or top up orders where there is a maximum Child Maintenance Service assessment.

Where an application for a financial order has been issued in a divorce or dissolution of civil partnership, disclosure is exchanged by each of you completing a detailed document called a Form E. You will be required to attach to the Form E copies of your last 12 months’ bank statements, documentary evidence of your investments, property valuations and pension statements, along with documentary evidence such as P60s, payslips, tax returns and company accounts detailing your income.

You are entitled to share assets not in your name/ in joint names if they are considered matrimonial assets. This includes assets acquired during the marriage even if they are not held in your name.

There are several avenues to resolve financial matters in divorce cases, and our approach is tailored to your unique circumstances. We aim to facilitate agreement using non-court dispute resolution processes (NCDR), to reduce cost and acrimony.

As outlined fully in “Our Approach” section, we work closely with you to develop a strategy aligned with your goals, whether that involves voluntary disclosure and negotiations, mediation, Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) , private FDR hearings, arbitration or in court proceedings.

We prioritise efficiency, avoiding unnecessary legal fees associated with unsuccessful dispute resolution methods but will always strive to have your case resolved by agreement if possible. If we determine that an alternative approach is needed, we will promptly advise you, allowing you to make informed decisions.

The length of time it takes to reach a financial settlement depends on how quickly the parties are able to agree matters and the route elected to reach a resolution. If there is a swift exchange of voluntary disclosure followed by mediation or solicitor negotiation which is successful, the process can be concluded quickly (within a few weeks to months). On the other end of the spectrum, if court proceedings are commenced and the case proceedings through to final hearing, concluding matters could take between 12 to 18 months.

Clarence Family Law advises most separating couples to reach a financial settlement by agreement or via methods of non-court dispute resolution (NCDR), however, if this is not possible, you may apply to the court for a financial order. The following summary sets out the court process: -

Stage 1: Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM)

Before applying to the court for a financial order you must attend a meeting about mediation (called a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting – MIAM), unless this is inappropriate for specific reasons (for example, where there has been domestic abuse).

If mediation is deemed inappropriate or is unsuccessful, a party can initiate financial proceedings by way of filing a form A and paying a court fee (*currently £313). Once issued the Respondent to the financial application will be informed by the court and the court will issue directions (“Form C”) setting out the next steps in the timetable including the exchange of financial disclosure (Forms E).

Stage 2: Financial disclosure

The next step is for parties to complete their financial disclosure using the Form E template.

All assets of any nature, income and other relevant matters must be disclosed in the Form E. This includes all properties you have an interest in, all bank accounts, investments/shares, business interests, trust interests, valuable items you own, and pensions.

This form and required enclosures (including 12 months’ worth of bank statements, up to date investment statements, pension CEVs and payslips/ P60s) must be sent to the court and your ex-partner within the time limit stated in the court directions order.

The Form E allows the court to have a detailed look at both parties’ finances so that, when it makes a decision, it can be a fair.

Importantly, it also puts both parties on an equal footing, particularly if one party has principally dealt with finances and there is a lack of visibility, allowing them to see what is in the ‘pot’.

It is crucial that you disclose everything in the Form E. If you do not do so, you may be in contempt of court, and this can result in a fine or imprisonment. You can also be penalised by a costs order being made against you.

Stage 3: the First Appointment Hearing:

This is the first court hearing. The court will usually schedule this hearing between 12 and 16 weeks after the Form A has been issued by the court.

Ahead of the hearing, the parties will have raised questionnaires of other party’s disclosure, seeking clarification on certain issues and/or seeking provision of any omitted information or documentation.

The purpose of the first appointment is to define (and if possible) narrow the issues and to make sure the court, and the parties, have all the information they need to decide the case. The court will make further directions if they determine that it is necessary, or at the request of either party, to ensure all the pertinent information is before the court at the next hearing.

At the hearing the court will: -

1. Review both parties’ disclosure on their Forms E. The Judge will assess what additional information is needed from each spouse and/or whether any experts are needed to e.g. value property or business assets before everyone has sufficient information to actively and constructively negotiate a settlement. It may also determine whether a pension report is required (a PODE report) to assess how to divide pension assets fairly.
2. If there is a dispute about what questions should be answered in the parties’ questionnaires, the court can direct which must be answered and/or what documents must be produced, and when.
3. Determine whether anyone else needs to be joined to the court proceedings, such as family members or other third parties who may claim (e.g.) to hold a beneficial interest in a family home. In other more complex cases, the trustees of a trust or company may need to be joined.

If both parties agree (and if they feel they have all the pertinent information) this hearing can be used to negotiate a settlement. The court would have to have advance notice from both parties if this were the case (in a form known as Form G) requesting that the hearing is converted to the second stage hearing – the Financial Dispute Resolution Hearing (“FDR”) to short-circuit matters. If this is possible it will save time and money.

It is also possible to use the ‘accelerated procedure’ and agree the directions without the need for a formal hearing in more straightforward cases. This means submitting the agreed directions to the court in a particular format, with supporting documents, with a request that the court makes an order without the parties’ attendance. This will save the time and cost of a court hearing.

Stage 3: The Financial Dispute Resolution (“FDR”) Hearing:

The FDR is the second court hearing.

The purpose of this hearing is to allow the parties to freely discuss matters and negotiate, with the assistance of the Judge. It is a key stage in financial remedy proceedings.

At an FDR, the court will have both parties’ financial disclosure, any expert reports, property valuations, evidence of mortgage raising capacity and evidence of future housing needs. Ahead of the hearing both parties will also exchange written proposals on a ‘without prejudice basis.’

After hearing oral submissions from both parties/ their representatives, the judge delivers an indication (or impartial view) to the parties as to the likely bracket of outcome should the matter proceed to final hearing. The aim is for the parties to work with that indication outside of court and to try and close the remit of dispute and reach overall settlement.

Although the Judge’s indication is not binding and a Judge cannot impose a final decision at the FDR, these hearings are very successful at encouraging settlement, reducing the areas of dispute and providing parties an independent view of their respective positions and prospects of success.

A benefit of the FDR hearing is that all discussions are held ‘Without Prejudice’ and if negotiations are not successful, they cannot be referred to if the litigation continues to a final contested trial. This means you are not stuck with any concessions made during negotiations and you are free to pursue your case fully at the final hearing. Consequently, the Judge hearing the FDR cannot be the judge at any final hearing; the final hearing Judge will know nothing of the without prejudice negotiations or FDR discussions or indications.

Stage 4: The Final Hearing:

Although most cases settle at or shortly after the FDR, some parties are unable to reach an agreement. This is often where one party has failed to engage meaningfully in the process; there remain disputes around full and frank disclosure and/or where a party remains wedded to an outcome which is unrealistic (which may have cost consequences). Where parties are unable to agree, the court will list a final hearing – often between 2 days and 10 days in duration, depending on complexity and number of witnesses, where a Judge will make a final, binding determination.

The rules now require the parties to file open proposals for settlement 21 days after the unsuccessful FDR (in addition to any without prejudice offers they may have made). If no FDR takes place, the open proposals must be made at least 42 days before the Final Hearing.

At a final hearing, both parties (and any witnesses) provide oral evidence under oath, answer questions put to them by the opposing legal representatives. At conclusion of the evidence and closing submissions, the Judge delivers judgment determining how the assets are to be divided and what order should be made.

At a final hearing the court can order several things including: -

• The transfer of a property or tenancy
• The sale of a property (with consequent order as to how proceeds should be divided)
• A lump sum payment
• A division of a pension (by making a pension share order or a pension attachment order)
• Spousal or global maintenance

You may be able to transfer money before a divorce, but caution is needed. Any transfers could later be seen as an attempt to conceal, dissipate or reduce assets, which may impact the financial settlement. Such actions may not only jeopardise the transparency of the proceedings and increase costs, the court also has the power to set aside those transactions in certain circumstances.

The division of assets in a divorce settlement will be decided by the courts on a case-by-case basis.

The court looks at a family’s assets and income and applies a long list of criteria to distribute the assets and income based on fairness.

There is no mathematical formula applied by the court. Instead, the court has broad discretion.

The most important criterion is the welfare of any children, but the court also considers the length of the marriage, respective contributions, health, ages, and earning capacity.

The starting point is that the assets/money generated during the marriage should be shared and divided equally (the sharing principle) unless there is a reason to depart from equality, e.g. one party needs more (typically to house themselves and the children). It does not matter for the purpose of distribution on divorce whether that property is held in joint names or separate names. It is also possible for claims to be made against interests in a trust or trust assets if the court agrees that they are ‘nuptial settlements’ capable of variation. A nuptial settlement is when spouses are beneficiaries connected to the trust in their capacity as spouses.

Non-matrimonial property i.e. assets brought to a marriage or inherited during it are not automatically susceptible to the sharing principle. The other party will only be able to claim against non-matrimonial property if such assets are required to meet the needs of one of the parties.

In rare cases, one person may be compensated for a significant financial disadvantage caused by the marriage, such as giving up a high-earning career opportunity. This principle is used infrequently and only in specific circumstances.

The court can also make orders for maintenance. The court will only make an order for maintenance if the other spouse cannot meet their own income needs. The duration of these payments depends on the age of the parties and the ability of the receiving party to become self-sufficient. The court does expect spouses to take all steps necessary to support themselves, if possible, and become financially independent.

Child maintenance is dealt with separately and is most typically calculated using a formula based on the number of nights the children spend with each parent and earnings.

Spousal maintenance is a regular payment made by a spouse or civil partner or a former spouse or civil partner to their husband, wife or civil partner. It is usually expressed to be payable monthly and is designed to provide support to a former spouse where one party cannot meet their reasonable needs from their own income and resources following divorce. It is separate from child maintenance.

In England and Wales, spousal maintenance is not automatic, nor is it calculated using a fixed formula. The overarching objective is fairness, taking into account the circumstances of both parties.

The amount and the length of any order for spousal maintenance is determined by the careful balancing of various factors including the length of the couple’s marriage, their ages, their incomes and assets, their needs and the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.
Needs play a central role in the assessment and term of spousal maintenance. Courts typically consider housing costs, day to day expenditure, lifestyle related expenses and the presence and cost of children and childcare responsibilities.

Earning capacity also plays a crucial role in the assessment of spousal maintenance cases, particularly in high income and high-net-worth divorces. The courts distinguish between actual income, and what each party could be expected to earn in the future.

The Courts may order: -

1. Term maintenance (for a fixed period of time);
2. Maintenance with a review
3. Joint lives maintenance

The courts are increasingly focused on encouraging independence. Joint lives orders are increasingly rare, and maintenance is not a “meal ticket for life.” However, in long marriages, and/ or where there is a significant disparity in earning potential, or ongoing childcare responsibilities, maintenance pay be payable for a lengthy term.

Spousal maintenance orders can be varied if circumstances change. In high-income cases, income volatility or changes in business performance may lead to future applications.

Courts consider whether the changes were foreseeable, the extent of change and whether variation in the circumstances of the case is justified.

If you need financial support whilst your application for financial remedies is still ongoing, you can make an application for interim maintenance.

Interim maintenance orders are designed to meet immediate and urgent needs and are often assessed at lower amounts than you might expect to negotiate or be awarded in your final order.

Applications for interim orders can be expensive and risky, particularly if inflated and so it is advisable to negotiate and agree a level of interim maintenance if you can.

In addition to interim maintenance, you can also apply for a Legal Services Payment Order (LSPO). These are sometimes also referred to as Section 22ZA orders after the statutory authority under which they can be made.

A LSPO is an order requiring the other spouse to pay an amount to enable you to secure legal services. It can be a one-off payment or payments in instalments or for a specified period or deferred. However, they will usually only cover a discrete part of the court proceedings, rather than covering all of your costs and it is sometimes necessary to make more than one application throughout the process.

In financial proceedings, both parties are under a duty to provide full and frank disclosure of their finances. If you suspect your spouse is hiding assets, you can raise questions about any gaps in their disclosure, and in some cases instruct experts to review the financial information for signs of undisclosed wealth. It may also be possible to secure information from third parties (*e.g. banks or employers) or public records. The court has powers to compel disclosure, with serious consequences for non-compliance.

In more extreme cases, the court can also make “search and seize” orders or can order that assets be preserved pending the outcome of your financial application.

At Clarence Family Law we have extensive experience of non-disclosure/ attempts to conceal assets – including off-shore trusts and cryptocurrency both during the proceedings and post settlement leading to set-aside action. We will pursue all legal avenues robustly to compel disclosure

Deliberate non-disclosure is taken seriously by the court. If a person is found to have tried to hide an asset or to conceal its true value, they can be penalised either by being ordered to pay the other party’s costs or by receiving a less favourable settlement.

The court is also entitled to draw “adverse inferences” from your family’s lifestyle if it can be demonstrated by you to be inconsistent with the level of financial resources disclosed. The court can make an order on the basis that there is a certain amount of money available, though such orders may be hard to implement unless there are clear assets against which they can be enforced.

If there is a danger that assets may be dissipated or removed from the jurisdiction, and you have proof sufficient to convince a court, an application can be made for a “freezing” order - or where assets have already been disposed of for a set aside order. Freezing orders can extend to assets held overseas and in exceptional circumstances foreign courts can be requested to assist by making a “mirror order” freezing assets within their jurisdiction in support of the English proceedings.

Parties must be fully transparent and co-operative with the court, so trying to hide or dispose of assets to prevent your spouse accessing them will likely result in penalties and adverse inferences being drawn.

There are other ways assets may be protected, for example by entering into a Prenuptial or Postnuptial agreement  which sets out how assets will be divided if the marriage comes to an end. Prenuptial and Postnuptial agreements are not legally binding in the courts of England and Wales, but they are very persuasive, and the likelihood is that each party will be bound by the terms.

Non-matrimonial property i.e. assets brought to a marriage or inherited during it are not automatically subject to the sharing principle.

If the funds brought into the marriage have been used to purchase the family home, undertake renovations or pay off the mortgage, it is unlikely you will be able to ringfence those funds and claim they are not sharable.

Even if the money/ asset has been kept separate (e.g. in a portfolio), it will still depend on whether there are sufficient matrimonial assets/funds to meet everyone’s needs. If not, those funds (or a portion of those funds) may be invaded to meet needs.

The family home is usually treated as a matrimonial asset, even if it is not in your name or you have not contributed directly to the mortgage. To protect your position, it is often advisable to register a Home Rights Notice with HM Land Registry. This helps secure your right to occupy the property and prevents it being sold without your knowledge or consent.

Yes, the court treats short, medium and long marriages differently. It is important to remember that if you lived with someone (cohabited) directly before getting married that seamless ‘cohabitation period’ will be counted towards the length of your marriage. For example – a couple who lived together for 8 years and married for 2 years would be considered a 10 year marriage.

When considering the appropriate division of a couple’s financial resources upon divorce, the English court takes into account the factors listed in s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. This includes “the conduct of each of the parties, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it” (s 25(2)(g)).

The case of OG v AG 2020 established four types of conduct summarised by Mr Justice Mostyn: (i) gross and obvious misconduct (ii) add-back (iii) litigation misconduct (iv) drawing adverse inferences as to the existence of assets from a party’s conduct in failing to give full and frank disclosure.

Financial conduct and add-back: -

Conduct which has the effect of dissipating or diminishing the marital pot is conduct which can be taken into account by the courts when determining how the assets should be divided. This principle was explained by Cairns LJ in Martin v Martin [1976] Fam. 335:

“a spouse cannot be allowed to fritter away the assets by extravagant living or reckless speculation and then to claim as great a share of what was left as he would have been entitled to had he behaved reasonably.”

Where financial conduct pursued by one of the parties, that party usually seeks for the dissipated funds to be “added back” to the asset schedule. The term “add back” derives from the case of Norris v Norris [2002] EWHC 2996, [2003] 1 FLR 1142. In summary, if one party has “wantonly and recklessly disposed of assets, then there is a potential argument to “add back” a sum to reflect what has been lost.

The concept of add-back was further considered by the Court of Appeal in Vaughan v Vaughan [2007] EWCA Civ 1085, [2008] 1 FLR 1108 where the husband, by his own admission, gambled away family funds. The judge at first instance refused to ‘add back’ these sums, but the Court of Appeal ultimately determined that £100,000 should be added back. Wilson LJ, however highlighted that caution should be adopted before the court adds back to the asset schedule money that no longer exists and stated that there must be “clear evidence of dissipation (in which there is a wanton element)”.

In Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023] EWFC 130 the judge made clear that "conduct" allegations need to be properly pleaded at the earliest opportunity. The person alleging the conduct is required to state exactly what the conduct allegations are, how those allegations meet the threshold for a conduct claim, and what the financial impact caused by the alleged conduct is so that the person accused of misconduct knows what case it is that he/she must meet.

Warning: even where conduct may appear to be wanton and reckless, the court may not consider it to be so, because of the particular characteristics of that individual. In the case of MAP v MFP (Financial Remedies: Add-Back) [2015] EWHC 627 (Fam), [2016] 1 FLR 70 the wife alleged that the husband was spending £6,000 a week on cocaine and further large sums on sex work. Moor J held that whilst the husband’s spending, particularly on drugs and sex work, was morally culpable, it was not deliberate or wanton dissipation within the meaning formulated by the authorities. He had not overspent to reduce the wife’s claim. It was down to his flawed character. A spouse had to take his or her partner as he or she found them.

Litigation misconduct:

Litigation misconduct can also be taken into account under s 25(2)(g) where parties are in court proceedings and one party fails to comply with Court Orders, Court directions and the Family Procedure Rules. It is usually penalised in costs but can, in rare circumstances, impact the overall award.

The general rule in financial remedy proceedings is that there should be no order as to costs (r 28.3(5) of the FPR 2010). However the court may depart from the general rule where it considers it appropriate to do so because of the conduct of a party in relation to the proceedings (see r 28.3(6)).

Recent examples of litigation misconduct can be found in the cases of HD v WB [2023] EWFC 2 in which the husband was penalised for unreasonably pursuing a case that a Prenuptial agreement should be disregarded and DP v EP (conduct: economic abuse: needs) [2023] EWFC 6, in which the judge found the wife’s presentation of her case to be dishonest. In the latter case, even though the wife had already been penalised for her conduct during the marriage by the unequal division of the assets in the husband’s favour, the judge also made an order for costs against her. In the recent case of VTY v GDB 2025 the judge found the husband had “defied court orders with impunity” and “engaged in a frustrating and confounding process of obfuscatory disclosure”. The judge considered that the husband’s disclosure and litigation conduct had been appalling and was “designed to confuse and obfuscate.” The outcome was an unequal division of the assets, alongside a costs order against the husband.

Potentially. The law is shifting in this regard and the role of personal conduct in financial remedy proceedings is firmly back in the spotlight following two recent decisions of Cusworth J published in 2026.

The court’s approach to personal conduct before the recent decisions was that such conduct should only be raised where “obvious and gross” and where it would be “inequitable to disregard”. The case law has also established a norm that a direct financial consequence must be demonstrated. The bar was very high for personal conduct to be considered.

The two recent decisions have challenged the judicial approach to date, suggesting a more discretionary approach, perhaps opening the door to conduct arguments moving forwards. His Lordship placed less emphasis on a direct financial consequence being made out. He reasoned that although the financial consequences may be difficult to quantify, this does not mean they are absent and to ignore the conduct because its impact cannot be precisely measured risks producing an unfair outcome, and he considered conduct as part of the overall assessment of ‘fairness’.

In LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473: the wife’s award was reduced by 40% further to her “deplorable conduct”. The court assessed her asserted needs restrictively and determined she was not entitled to a replication of the marital standard of living. The court found that the marriage was founded on deception and fraud, where the wife also made false claims of being a High Court Judge and demanded money for judicial trips and studies. The court also found that there had been coercive, controlling and abusive behaviour perpetrated by the wife towards the husband. Cusworth J explained that whilst the impact of coercive and controlling behaviour may be hard to measure, that does not mean the impact will not be present, considering that there is a real risk of unfairness to victims of such behaviour if it is ignored as a result. His Lordship determined that the wife’s conduct would be the “glass through which the court would assess fairness”.

Wei-Lyn Loh v Ardal Loh-Gronager [2025] EWFC 483: the husband and wife had signed a pre-nuptial agreement before their 2019 wedding. The court found that the husband’s behaviour throughout the marriage and during proceedings was deplorable, including taking significant sums from joint accounts and placing the money into his sole name. Upon separation, he undermined, harassed and unsettled the wife to deter her from fighting him. He forged emails and denigrated and criticised the wife in his evidence. Cusworth J concluded that the test for conduct and the approach taken to Prenuptial agreements should be considered together. In the context of personal conduct, the court held that ‘inequitable’ means no more and no less than ‘unfair’ or ‘unjust’. Fairness is likewise the central consideration when determining the weight to be given to a Prenuptial agreement, as established in Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42. Cusworth J acknowledged that the higher courts have sought for policy reasons to limit to only the most serious instances the alteration of a financial remedy outcome by applying s 25(2)(g), whilst also noting that when the implementation of a nuptial agreement has been in issue the application of the principle of fairness has not noticeably been so constrained.

For those parties who believe they do have a conduct case, it must be remembered that conduct must be raised at the earliest opportunity, usually in Form E, and must be pleaded specifically and clearly, identifying the allegations of conduct and, ideally, the direct financial impact of each.

Two recent decisions, the judgment of HHJ Hess in YC v ZC [2022] EWFC 137 and the judgment of DDJ Hodson in P v P (treatment of costs in sharing cases) [2022] EWFC 158 have considered the court’s approach where one party has unreasonably incurred considerably more in legal fees than the other.

In both cases, the court dealt with the injustice that arose from the differential in legal costs expended by making an adjustment in the court’s asset schedule before distribution, either by excluding a portion of the excessive spender’s unpaid costs or adding back a portion of the excessive spender’s costs already paid, in order to penalise them. HHJ Hess made clear that in the right circumstances a party could expect to receive an award which meets their needs at a lower level than might otherwise have been the case, as a consequence of overspending on legal costs.

In his judgment, DDJ Hodson describes spending on excessive costs as an advance on account of the party’s entitlement and distinguishes it from the add-back jurisprudence which needs to meet the hurdle of “wanton dissipation”.

These latest cases highlight to all litigants (and potential litigants) the need to spend sensibly and proportionately on costs.

The court can order the sale of the family home, whether it is owned jointly or in one person’s name, and decide how the proceeds should be divided. Whether a sale is ordered will depend on the circumstances, with the court considering factors such as each party’s housing needs and how both will be accommodated after the sale.

Responsibility for debt in divorce depends on why the debt was incurred. Debts used for the benefit of the family such as home improvements or a family car are usually treated as joint debts, even if they are in one person’s name. Debts taken out for one person’s sole benefit may be treated as individual, though this is less common. The court will also consider when the debt arose, with pre-marital debts more likely to remain the responsibility of the individual.

If you are married or in a civil partnership, pensions are treated as part of the overall financial settlement in divorce and are assessed alongside other assets. The court considers each case individually, taking into account factors such as the length of the marriage, the needs of any dependent children, the financial circumstances of both parties, and the standard of living enjoyed during the relationship. A Pension Sharing Order is the most commonly used method for dividing pensions during a divorce. It allows for a clean break by splitting the pension at the time the divorce is finalised. A specific percentage of one partner’s pension is transferred into a separate pension in the other spouse’s name, giving each person their own independent retirement fund moving forward.

The Cash Equivalent or CE is the cash value of pension benefits which have accrued to or in respect of a pension scheme. It is only the starting point in valuing pensions. The limitations in CE figures need to be clearly understood and in many cases expert valuation and advice will be required [see Q&As relating to PODE reports].

Pensions are often overlooked, misunderstood or valued incorrectly.

After property, the largest asset on a divorce (or dissolution of civil partnership) is usually the pension(s). The overall aim in financial remedy cases is to achieve fairness between the parties. This applies to pensions as much as other assets, but they can be difficult to value and divide.

In many cases the court orders (or the parties mutually agree) to instruct an expert to undertake a PODE report. PODE stands for ‘Pension of Divorce Expert’ and is either a pension actuary or independent financial adviser, who provides an impartial, detailed assessment of pensions options in the context of divorce. The report is crucial in helping both parties and the court understand the true value and implication of pension sharing. It ensures transparency, fairness and compliance with current rules and guidelines.

A PODE report, undertaken by a pension actuary or independent financial adviser analyses all relevant pension schemes held by both spouses, considering factors such as scheme type, benefits, retirement ages, and any complex rules that might affect their value. This analysis goes far beyond a simple statement of fund value; it interprets how a pension can be divided in a way that is both fair and compliant with legal requirements.

The importance of a PODE report in divorce cases cannot be overstated. Pensions are often one of the most valuable assets in a marriage, yet they are complicated to assess and divide. Often without expert input parties can overlook hidden pitfalls—such as the different treatment of defined benefit and defined contribution pensions, or the impact of early retirement options and guarantees.

When a court is asked to deliver a pension sharing order, a well-prepared PODE report becomes an essential piece of the puzzle. It ensures that decisions are made based on accurate, up-to-date information, and it minimises the risk of disputes or unfairness further down the line. Instructing a pension on divorce expert early in the process can also help parties reach an amicable settlement more efficiently, saving time and legal costs.

Offsetting is the process by which your right to receive a present or future pension benefit is traded for capital or money now. For example, you might forego a pension in return for a larger share of the proceeds of sale of your house.

However, you need to think carefully about any settlement along these lines because liquid assets and pensions are wholly different in nature. The difficulty lies in comparing very different types of asset e.g. a pension as a future whole-of-life income stream, against cash, housing or other non-pension assets. Offsetting of pensions needs to be calculated carefully; it is important that you know the value that you might be losing, retaining or acquiring.

A Pension Attachment Order against your spouse’s pension has the effect of redirecting part or all of the pension income to you, but only when it comes into payment. However, there are certain disadvantages including the fact that it cannot provide for a clean break and that the income is lost if your ex-spouse dies, or if you remarry. You also can’t receive any payment until your ex-spouse decides to draw their retirement benefits, which they might delay for tactical (or vengeful) purposes. For these reasons, Pension Attachment Orders are now very rarely made.

A pension sharing order provides for a specified percentage of the Cash Equivalent (CE) of a pension to be transferred to the other spouse. Effectively, it divides the pension between the couple giving the other party a pension in their own right.

Pension sharing orders are now the most common method of dealing with pensions on divorce. They have the effect of enabling a spouse without a pension (or a modest pension) to acquire, on divorce, a pension in their own right unaffected by the death of their ex-spouse or their own remarriage, giving them greater control of their own future finances.

Once it has been decided what percentage of the total value of the other spouse’s pension you are to receive, that percentage, called the “pension credit,” is transferred into an existing pension, a new pension or an extra pension as part of the existing scheme, but in your sole name.

A pension can only be divided by order of the court, not by private agreement. Any agreement to share a pension must therefore be recorded in a court order (which can be by consent rather than through court proceedings) to ensure that it is effective against the pension provider.

through agreement), the Order will set out each parties’ obligations including the sale or transfer of property, payment of a lump sum(s), the payment of maintenance and pension sharing provision. The Order provides both parties with protection in case the other party defaults on the Order.

If a party breaches a financial remedy order, an application can be made to the family court to enforce the relevant provisions of the order. There are several methods of enforcement, and the right one for you will depend on which element or elements of the Order have been breached.

Breaching a court order can result in serious consequences, and therefore a party should not wilfully ignore it. If a party believes that a court order is unfair, or they can no longer afford to meet their obligations, they must appeal or apply for a variation.

A party may apply to the court for enforcement by submitting a Form D50K. An application for a specific method of enforcement may be made, or an application for an order for such means of enforcement as the court may consider appropriate. The application should be made to the court where the original order was made.

• Attachment of earnings – an order directly requesting a party’s employer to deduct a specified portion of their wages and pay it to the court. This method is only suitable when the paying party is employed.
• Third party debt order – an order directed at someone other than the paying party, so that third party funds owed to the paying party are paid to you instead. Commonly, if the paying party has a bank account with a positive balance or they are due to receive monies, an order can be made over these sums.
• Charging order – an order applied to the party’s property, which means that if they sell or re-mortgage the property, payment can be taken from the proceeds.
• Order for sale – in some cases, the court can also make an order for sale.
• Writ or warrant of control – an order authorising a bailiff to seize money or goods from the paying party, which will then be sold to recover the sum owed.
• Judgment summons - an order requiring the debtor to appear in court, and in extreme circumstances, may be sentenced to imprisonment for a maximum of 6 weeks. Whilst this order does not procure payment, it provides a good incentive to meet obligations under an order

If a party is applying to enforce arrears, they must apply to the court within 12 months of the arrears being due. Otherwise, the court’s permission will be required to enforce payment on arrears older than 12 months.

If you are successful if enforcing the order, you can expect to have your costs (or a portion of your costs) paid by the party in breach.

It is possible to enforce payment of an Order made in England & Wales in the courts in another jurisdiction, and similarly the courts in England & Wales can enforce payment of orders made overseas. Each jurisdiction has their own rules, and the method of enforcement will depend on which jurisdiction is involved.

Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (Part III) gives the English Court the power to make financial Orders after a marriage has been dissolved in an overseas country if there has been inadequate financial provision on that overseas divorce, and the parties have sufficient connection with England.

You are eligible to apply if three criteria are satisfied: -

1. your divorce must be recognised as legally valid. If your divorce was legal in the country in which it was obtained, then the courts here will accept that it is legal for the purposes of our law.
2. you must not have remarried.
3. you must have a sufficient connection with England.

You can demonstrate “sufficient connection” with England by:

1. Either you or your former spouse must have been domiciled in England (i.e. you consider it your true home) at the time of the foreign divorce or at the time of the application; or
2. One of you must have been habitually resident in England (i.e. your life is principally based here) for a period of 12 months before the date on which the foreign divorce took effect, or for 12 months before the date of the application; or
3. One of you must have an interest in a property here that had been a matrimonial home (but in this instance, your claims are limited to the value of that property).

The eligibility criteria are restricted, and it essential you can evidence eligibility before embarking on a Part III application.

The English court has the power to make a wide range of orders that are very similar to the financial orders which can be made on divorce in England. The range of orders is contained within s 17 MFPA 1984 and includes lump sum orders, property transfer orders, periodical payments orders and pension sharing orders.

The intention of Part III when it was conceived in the 1980s was to protect vulnerable parties to a divorce, when their spouse had utilised another jurisdiction which was favourable to him/ her to secure a divorce and financial award which did not meet the needs of the weaker spouse.

Following the enactment of the 1984 legislation, the family court took a restrictive approach to part III until the decision of the Supreme Court in Agbaje v Agbaje [2010] UKSC 13]. This case involved a Nigerian couple who had divided their time between Nigeria and London for much of their marriage. All five of their children were born in England and the wife had lived in London since the parties separated. Following the husband obtaining a divorce in Nigeria, the wife successfully applied under part III and was awarded 39% of the family assets, enabling her to purchase a new home in England.

After that decision, impetus to claim under Part III grew and as evidenced in several reported decisions, an increasing number of people have sought to benefit from the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

The long running case of Potanina v Potanin is one of the most significant in part III claims. The latest Court of Appeal Judgment in 2025 reinforces the strength of Part III as a mechanism for spouses who believe they were inadequately compensated in foreign divorce settlements, provided they can establish a real and meaningful connection with England. The English courts retain wide discretion in Part III applications, with the key considerations being a genuine link to England and a realistic prospect of a successful claim.

If you can demonstrate a “sufficient connection” with England, the first step is to apply to the court for permission to make an application. This process is designed to filter out unmeritorious claims.

If the court grants leave, you will then move to the second stage of the process, namely issuing the substantive application for financial relief. That application proceeds in a similar fashion as if you were applying for a financial remedy order in England.