Log on
Browse content

Family Justice Council Guidance on “Financial Needs” on Divorce

Legal Materials Copyright Statement & Disclaimer

Guidance issued to clarify the meaning of “financial needs” on divorce and encourage consistency of approach by the courts

  • The Family Justice Council has published new Guidance on 'Financial Needs' on Divorce

    This follows the Law Commission consultation on "Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements" published in February 2014. In contrast to the LiP guidance issued earlier this year, this guidance is addressed at courts and legal advisers. 

    Its aims are to:

    • clarify the meaning of "financial needs" on divorce with particular reference to the most commonly encountered cases (i.e. needs-based cases);
    • provide a clear statement of the objective that financial orders made to meet needs should (if possible) achieve; and
    • encourage consistency of approach by the courts

    The guidance only covers needs so does not address sharing or compensation.

    By examining the case law, the report gives the following guidance:

    • The main needs in most cases are for housing and present and future income.
    • Future income typically includes a need for income in retirement.
    • The court will assess the level and duration of need as a question of fact.
    • The court will decide whether the needs can best be met by capital or income provision.
    • The term "reasonable requirements" to describe needs is now not approved.
    • The term "needs (generously interpreted)" has gained acceptance to assist determination in higher resource cases.
    • Need will be measured by assessing available financial resources.
    • The court will strive to stretch finite resources and where resources are modest the children's needs may predominate.
    • Need will be measured by assessing the standard of living during the relationship, generally the longer the relationship's duration the more important this factor will be.
    • A party may be expected to suffer some reduction in standard of living having regard to the overall objective of a transition to independence.
    • To measure need, and the ability to meet it, both parties will be expected to present appropriately detailed budgets to the court.
    • Needs may be met from non-matrimonial resources.
    • A court in a needs case should not focus on the marital acquest, but should instead consider all the available assets.
    • The court will assess the needs of both parties.
    • Before requiring payments to meet need the court will stand back and consider what portion of the payer's resources should fairly go to the payee.
    • Where resources are modest the children's need for a home with their primary carer may predominate but, if possible, the court will strive to stretch resources to provide a home for children with each of their parents.
    • The court will consider the detrimental impact of requiring one party to remain on the mortgage of the other's home for an indefinite period.
    • If the needs of the children require one party to sacrifice an entitlement to capital in favour of the primary carer then the court will consider reimbursement to the sacrificing party through a Mesher order.
    • This may not be appropriate if the capital sacrificed can be generated through anticipated future endeavours by the sacrificing party.
    • The fairness of a Mesher order may also be undermined by the likely effects on the primary carer at the time the trigger events apply.

    The report then goes on to tackle the difficult issue of duration of provision for needs and the transition to independence, and gives the following guidance:

    • Most case outcomes tend eventually not towards life-long support but towards independence, but this is not appropriate in all cases.
    • If needs are to be met through a periodical payments order then the court must consider (whether making an initial order or a variation order) whether to make a joint lives order, an extendable term order or a non-extendable term order.
    • In deciding on the duration of any order the court will need to consider the statutory steer towards the termination of obligations at the earliest point which is just and reasonable, but termination should only occur if the payee can adjust to it without undue hardship.
    • Termination of the obligations should not be achieved at the expense of a fair result.
    • Termination of the obligations should be justified by reference to an evidential foundation, not crystal ball glazing or pious exhortation.
    • A clean break should not be achieved at the expense of a fair result.
    • There is a distinction between "undue hardship" and "hardship" and a payee might be expected to suffer a degree of hardship - not all reductions in the standard of living amount to undue hardship.
    • In assessing undue hardship the court is likely to draw a distinction between, for example, short childless marriages and marriages which are either long or involve children or both.
    • Fixed or extendable terms: 28(1A) MCA 1973 - where a term order is made the court must decide whether it is to be extendable. Where a party seeks to extend a term the court must carry out a fresh analysis of need, but the reason for the imposition of the initial term is likely to be a relevant and possibly decisive factor.
    • Step down maintenance orders - when making a periodical payments order the court may impose future step ups or step downs of the amount to be paid to anticipate future changes in circumstances, for example an anticipated gain of employment.

    Annex 2 contains a useful table of cases with short summaries together with worked examples, taken from the LiP guidance. 

    Annex 3 briefly addresses the topic of pensions, referring to the orthodox approach encouraged by Martin-Dye v Martin-Dye [2006] 2 FLR 901, but noting that there are issues in cases of more modest means and that there is no consistent methodology when pension offsetting.

    Annex 4 is a table giving practical examples of different types of need, ranging from the common place (for example, a main home) to the more unusual (for example, funding a hobby).

    Note: this guidance does not and is not intended to change the law. Its purpose is to disseminate information about the ways in which the courts' discretion is currently exercised, and to encourage the consistent use of that discretion in a particular way and (if possible) with a particular objective.

    Download the full guidance in pdf 

Published: 04/07/2016

Bookmark this item


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.