Financial Provision on Divorce

Lord Meston Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for raising this question for further debate. The Law Commission’s thorough and balanced scoping report asks if it is agreed that the law needs reform and which of the four suggested models for reform should be preferred by the Government. Importantly, it asks the Government to consider what underpinning principles should appear in reforming legislation.

The Law Commission made it clear that future work in this area will require a number of significant policy decisions. Having worked since the early 1970s as a barrister, then until recently as a judge, dealing with matrimonial and other family cases, I hope that I understand the strengths and weaknesses of existing law and practice. When I started, the law, introduced in 1970 and reproduced in 1973, moved the focus of cases away from largely sterile disputes over legal ownership of property towards the realities of the needs of the parties and their children. The Act of 1984 added the aim of achieving financial independence and an immediate or deferred clean break. Case law has emphasised the objective of a fair outcome. Present company, I hope, will forgive me for saying that case law has not been assisted with its concept of matrimonialisation, which has perhaps moved the clock back, and arguments about it should be confined to a luxury in bigger money cases.

Whatever reform option is selected, the need will be for law that gives clarity, predictability and some flexibility and can address any significant financial disadvantage and disparity. While trying to avoid uncritical attachment to what is familiar to me, I suggest that problems with the operation of the existing law have in some respects been overstated. Much of the current law has evolved through authoritative decisions in big-money cases involving ultra-high-net-worth individuals, which have little similarity to the average case, with far less cloth to be cut, trying to create two households out of one mortgaged family home and stretched incomes and borrowing capacity. Whatever option is selected—I prefer the so-called codification plus model, with principles clearly stated on the face of the statute, maintaining the ability of judges to exercise discretion—I think the time has come for a decision to be made.

I wish to make the following final points. First, leaving some level of informed discretion to the court should not be seen as a bad or undesirable thing. Achieving greater certainty should not require restrictive rigidity. If anything, family law practitioners know that one size does not fit all. Secondly, any new law should highlight the importance of pensions and reform should address the question of accessible and affordable valuation of pensions. Thirdly, the temptation to allow for greater emphasis on domestic abuse as relevant conduct should be resisted, except in extreme cases. If disputed, allegations of domestic abuse have to be tried, and the cost to the parties and the court time taken will be greatly increased. Even when established, such abuse is hard to quantify in monetary terms, unless serious enough to have had a long-term financial consequence. Fourthly, if there is to be further delay, as has been said, the Government can at least now legislate for prenuptial agreements.

Finally, I suggest that the views of experienced specialist practitioners at the coalface should not be disregarded. They have to operate any changed legislative cogs, perhaps consoled by the advice of the late Joseph Jackson, doyen of matrimonial law, that there is always at least 10 years’ work in any new Act of Parliament.