You can apply for an order to determine how to divide assets including:

• pensions
• property
• savings
• investments

Prior to applying with a Form A, the parties must have submitted an application for divorce and usually would need to have a Conditional Order.

As part of the application the court will ask for your marriage certificate.

• Questionnaire: Questions with respect to the disclosures can be asked of each party.
• Chronology
• Issues Paper
• Form H - Estimate of Costs
• ES1 - Composite Case Summary
• ES2 - Composite Asset Schedule
• Form G

• whether the parties have followed the directions given by the court.
• each of the parties issues paper.
• whehter further information might be needed through the answering of questions
• whether further documents and disclosures are needed.
• consider whether mediationmy be appropriate
• to provide any new directions for the next hearing the FDRH (Financial Dispute Resolution Hearing)

PLEASE NOTE: The First Appointment is NOT about litigation and arguing each other position. There are no corss examinations or tsting of any evidence. The aim is to tendure that parties have made full and frank disclosures, to iron out any problems around providing and exchanging disclosures and to ensure that the case and paperwork is at an acceptable standard to progress to the second appointment.

Here's an overview of what happens during a Financial Dispute Resolution Appointment:

• Purpose: The primary goal of the FDR is to encourage both parties to negotiate and reach a voluntary agreement on the division of assets, property, debts, and financial arrangements for any children involved not resolved via the CMS.

• A Judge presides over the hearing. The hearing is usually set for 1 hr, however, the parties may negotiate within the court building, usually in private consultation rooms for as long as they feel as necessary.

• The judge's role is to to assist the parties in finding common ground and narrowing down the issues in dispute. The judge may give an indication of how they view the case's strengths and weaknesses, which can help both parties reassess their positions and reach a settlement. The Judge will give an indication of how they may resolve the case if they were to be the judge at the Final Hearing.

• Negotiations: After the judge's guidance, both parties have the opportunity to engage in negotiations. They may discuss settlement proposals and try to reach an agreement that meets the needs and interests of all involved parties.

• Mediation: In some cases, the judge may suggest mediation or further attempts at negotiation with the help of a neutral mediator to facilitate communication and compromise.

• Binding Agreement: If an agreement is reached during the FDR, the the Judge can produce a Final Order on consent.

• Next Steps: If a settlement is not reached during the FDR, the case will proceed to a final hearing, where the court will make a binding decision on the financial matters based on the evidence presented.

• The Judge at the FDRA cannot be the Judge at the Final Hearing. No notes or comments from the FDRA can be transferred or used at the Final Hearing.

As a reminder, the FDR is a significant opportunity to resolve financial disputes amicably, reducing the need for a lengthy and costly trial. However, if an agreement cannot be reached during the FDR, the court will step in to make a decision, taking into account the individual circumstances of the case.

During the Final Hearing, the judge will consider all the evidence presented by both parties. The judge's primary objective is to achieve a fair and equitable distribution of assets and financial support (if applicable) based on the individual circumstances of the case and the relevant legal principles.

After considering all the evidence and arguments, the judge will issue a court order outlining the financial arrangements that both parties must adhere to. This court order is legally binding and enforceable.

Prior to the Final Hearing the parties, if required to do so will need to:

• Submit a court bundle
• FIle and serve a narrative statement setting out your case and addressing the criteria under s.25 MCA 1973
• Submit any previous open and without prejudice offers;
• Arrang for any witnesses to be present if required;
• Consider if they need the support of a Qualified Legal Representative.
• Calculating costs schedules (Form H).

We strongly suggest that every McKenzie Friend should seek the assistance of a Trusted and Trained McKenzie Friend from the McKenzie Friend UK Network.

• The starting point of the division of assetts is 50/50. This can be deviated from according to needs and fairness. Known as the Sharing Principle:

  The sharing principle is that that the matrimonial pot will be divided equally between the parties unless there is a good reason to depart, such as one party's needs not being met on an equal division

• The needs of any child is the highest priority.
• On making any decisions, the court MUST apply the Section 25 Factors.
• All decisions are made on balance of probability.
• It is an irrebutable truth that you don't need paid lawyers in the family court.
• Financial needs can be divided broadly into capital need and income needs. Capital needs are most often for a home, furnishings and a car. Income needs is the amount of money each party requires to live on each month.

• Economic Abuse in Financial Settlements

• Conduct Cases

When considering the appropriate division of a couple’s financial resources upon divorce, the 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)). We look at the case law around conduct.

• Failing to disclose Matrimonial Assets

The test for this was established in the Supreme Court decision in Sharland v Sharland [2016] AC 871. 

Where Baroness Hale at paragraphs 32-33 held:

‘… But this is a case of fraud. … A party who has practised deception with a view to a particular end, which has been attained by it, cannot be allowed to deny its materiality. Furthermore, the court is in no position to protect the victim from the deception, or to conduct its statutory duties properly, because the court too has been deceived.

The only exception is where the court is satisfied that, at the time when it made the consent order, the fraud would not have influenced a reasonable person to agree to it, nor, had it known then what it knows now, would the court have made a significantly different order, whether or not the parties had agreed to it. But in my view, the burden of satisfying the court of that must lie with the perpetrator of the fraud. It was wrong in this case to place on the victim the burden of showing that it would have made a difference.’