header-logo header-logo

19 June 2015
Issue: 7657 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Return of the divorced

Recovering economy spurs rise in claims for more money

The number of divorced people returning to court to claim more money from their ex has more than doubled in the past year.

Some 29,060 people made a post-divorce financial claim in 2014, compared to 14,690 people in 2013, according to figures collected by law firm Hugh James.

The reason many ex-spouses return to court is that couples often fail to obtain a court order to formalise their financial agreement when they divorce, for example, where they reach their own informal settlement, according to Hugh James. Without this order, an ex can bring a new claim even years after their marriage was dissolved. Earlier this year, for example, the impoverished ex-wife of the multi-millionaire founder of Ecotricity brought a claim against him more than 20 years after they divorced, even though he was a penniless hippy living in a van during their marriage, in Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14.

During the recession, couples often preferred to make an informal division of assets in order to keep costs down. The number of claims brought outside the divorce process also dipped, to just 3,620 in 2011. Without a binding legal agreement, however, there is no time limit on one partner pursuing a further financial claim.

Meanwhile, the recovering economy has made such disputes more likely.

Charlotte Leyshon, associate at Hugh James, says: “The final step of having an agreement reached through mediation or arbitration formalised and adopted as a court order is crucial.

“Failure to do so leaves the door open to an unexpected future financial claim. Claims over pensions are a common reason for ex-spouses going back to court after a divorce. Since they are complex and not always relevant to immediate financial needs, they often don’t get the attention they should.”

 
Issue: 7657 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

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