header-logo header-logo

02 October 2019
Issue: 7858 / Categories: Legal News , Family , Divorce , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Fewer divorces but longer delays

Couples are postponing their divorce due to uncertainties caused by Brexit, family lawyers say.

According to the Family Court Quarterly Statistics for April to June 2019, published last week, 28,144 divorce petitions were made, a fall of 13%, while financial remedy cases fell 5%. Divorces take longer on average, up five weeks to 33 weeks for decree nisi and up three weeks to 58 weeks for Decree Absolute. Only 41% of care proceedings meet the 26-week target―the average time is 33 weeks.

Desmond O’Donnell, partner at Thomson Snell & Passmore, attributed the decrease in couples divorcing to ‘the uncertainty over Brexit, based on their perception that their (or their spouse’s) employment position is less secure now’.

Other reasons included ‘difficulty in selling the matrimonial home, which is often the most valuable asset’ and the fact many couples are choosing to cohabit rather than marry.

Lawyers also lamented increased delays in the family courts.

O’Donnell said cases are taking longer due to ‘various factors, including more individuals acting in person who often file incorrect paperwork, which adds to the court’s workload and delays the progress of the case; a decrease in the number of full time judges and/or an increase in the judge’s workload, all of which means it takes the court longer to process divorces or fix financial hearings’.

Deborah Jeff, partner at Seddons, said: ‘The figures reflect why frustration is being felt by court users―the court process is slowing down considerably.’

Laura Burrows, family associate at Collyer Bristow, said ‘Although the Family Court continues to move towards online divorce, it is under immense pressure. The regional divorce centres set up in 2015 are experiencing high volumes of work and staff shortages, and delays have reached unprecedented levels, impacting on divorcing couples who are unable to move on with their lives and facing increasing legal fees.’

Issue: 7858 / Categories: Legal News , Family , Divorce , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Corporate team welcomes paralegal inSouthampton

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

London firm strengthens real estate team with partner appointment

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll