Financial remedy outcomes on divorce in England and Wales: Not a 'meal ticket for life'

This paper reports data from a recent mixed-methods study of financial settlement on divorce in England & Wales. It aims to contribute to current debates about the prevalence of, and justification for, orders for spousal support (maintenance/periodical payments) following divorce. A central finding from the court file data examined in this study is how spousal support (paid almost exclusively by husbands to wives) is very largely confined to cases involving minor dependent children. The paper situates the discussion of cases that proceed through the legal system (only a minority of all divorces) in the wider context of general population data that show continuing economic disadvantage for women following divorce, largely as a result of their child care responsibilities. It concludes with a plea that discussion of reform in this area be underpinned by a firm grounding in the best available empirical data about the realities of financial provision on divorce, which are not to be found in media-reporting of high-profile, predominantly ‘big money’ cases.Nuffield Foundation funded the original empirical work on which the article draw

Rules Versus Discretion in Financial Remedies on Divorce

This article draws on data from a recent empirical study to examine the role of discretion in financial remedy cases on divorce, particularly in the ‘everyday’ needs-based cases that constitute the bulk of the caseload in England & Wales. It explores practitioner and judicial experiences and perceptions of the discretionary Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 regime to inform current debates about potential law reform in this area. In particular it provides findings on the issue of geographical variation in outcome as a lens through which to examine the rules versus discretion conundrum. The central argument made is that (1) the rules-discretion question is not a stark choice between opposites, but rather requires a decision about where along a spectrum between those poles to place a given legal regime; and (2) that the issue must be addressed in terms of both (a) substantive principle, where clarity and consistency about what the financial settlement should be seeking to achieve is vitally important, and (b) the law’s practical operation – the fashioning of particular packages of orders transferring value between the spouses – where greater discretion may be necessary to ensure fairness.Nuffield Foundatio