Moves to clarify advice in divorce cases and speed up financial settlements

A consultation on a package of measures aimed at reforming the process for financial provision in divorce cases was launched by the Law Society this week in a bid to speed up the process and enable solicitors to offer clearer advice at an earlier stage.

The consultation - which includes a ten-point plan to be read by practitioners and judges in conjunction with current laws - was launched in response to the fact that Parliament last legislated on the financial aspects of divorce more than 30 years ago.

Proposals include abandoning the terms 'petitioner' and 'respondent' in favour of 'husband' and 'wife', and requiring both parties to provide a schedule of assets, liabilities and income before ancillary relief proceedings.

It also suggests redrafting key forms laying out the assets and needs of the parties so they are easier to complete, and cutting the timetable for proceedings if both parties consent.

It recommends a speedy review of the costs rules and more training for judges, along with greater powers for them to order interim lump sums during proceedings and to take pre-marital agreements into consideration.

It adds that solicitors should be paid appropriately for the cost of drawing up legal aid bills for assessment.

Society president Carolyn Kirby said: 'Many people feel let down after expensive hearings because there is such a wide interpretation of current guidelines.

Greater consistency would enable people to have a better understanding of what to expect and result in settlements being reached earlier and more easily.'

Solicitors Family Law Association chairman David Burrows said solicitors currently had a difficult job explaining legal rights or predicting outcomes because the law was so complex.

He said the proposals would provide much greater clarity.

Speaking at the launch of the consultation in London, Lord Justice Thorpe said he hoped it would fuel talks about a comprehensive review of financial provision in divorce.

'[The current framework] is a tired old machine and it is high time that there was a legislative debate to see whether we couldn't have a spanking new model,' he argued.

Paula Rohan