Changes affecting the language of divorce, which took effect with the introduction of no-fault divorce in April 2022, are regularly leading to misunderstandings and causing issues to arise retrospectively for people who mistakenly believe that both their divorce and their financial remedy claims have been completed with the making of their final order. Further changes are needed to ensure the new language of divorce is unambiguous and user-friendly.
The language of divorce, used before the introduction of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, was in place for 145 years. When the new legislation was implemented, words that had long been used to describe the divorce application process, such as ‘petition’, ‘petitioner’, ‘decree nisi’ and ‘decree absolute’, were displaced by ‘application’, ‘applicant’, ‘conditional order’ and ‘final order’ respectively.
The intention was to simplify the language of divorce and make it more accessible, allowing people to apply for a divorce without the need for a solicitor and/or legal advice. The new language is easier for non-lawyers to understand and more consistent with the language used in other areas of the court process. For example, in the civil court system, the party advancing the application is also known as the ‘applicant’.
However, some legal practitioners believe the new terminology is reductive, because a final order in divorce proceedings can no longer be readily distinguished from a final order in a claim over an unpaid debt or a contract dispute, for example.
It is also becoming clear that the new language is causing confusion and giving rise to misunderstandings for divorcing people who mistakenly believe that a final order made within the divorce proceedings also terminates financial remedy claims – when the two processes are in fact distinct and separate.
On dozens of occasions since April 2022, I have been instructed by clients who were under the mistaken belief that the final order given to them, or that they were pursuing, had or would resolve the financial remedy claims that existed by virtue of their marriage. In one case, after receiving the final order for their divorce, my client had started investing in the former matrimonial home, installing a new kitchen and bathroom, which increased the property’s value by roughly £30,000. When their former spouse applied for a financial remedy order, my client was shocked to discover that they could be eligible for half this amount. In this case, the matter was resolved amicably by consent and before the first hearing, as both parties wanted to clear the decks before marrying again.
Sometimes misunderstandings can bring significant costs for unsuspecting individuals. For example, in Wyatt v Vince the couple were divorced in 1992, but it was not until 24 years later that Kathleen Wyatt applied for a financial remedy order for a share of her former husband’s wealth. After getting divorced, Dale Vince had founded an energy business which had since become successful. He also owned a non-league football club. Vince was understandably shocked to find his former wife had a valid claim to a share of these assets. Mrs Wyatt took her claim to the Supreme Court and was awarded a settlement of £500,000, including funds to cover her costs.
This case is a cautionary example, to both individuals seeking a divorce and legal advisers, indicating that a final order of divorce (or decree absolute as it was then) is not actually ‘final’ because it does not constitute a resolution of the financial remedy claims. I often quote the case of Vince when talking to clients, to reiterate the importance of resolving the financial remedy claims even where there are limited assets. I always recommend that they delay applying for a final order of divorce until the financial remedy claims are fully resolved, as it may also be necessary to consider the effect a final order would have on inheritance and/or a widow’s/widower’s pension entitlement.
Misunderstandings about the language of divorce are happening more frequently. This is largely due to the simplification of the divorce application process and the introduction of the online application, which has made it easier for individuals to lodge a divorce application without a solicitor. A litigant in person may not know of the need to resolve financial claims nor appreciate the importance of resolving them before applying for the final order of divorce.
A straightforward solution to the problems described above would be to include ‘divorce’ or ‘civil partnership dissolution’ within the name of the order – so, it would become a ‘final divorce order’ or a ‘final civil partnership dissolution order’. In addition, a simple suffix could be applied to confirm whether a financial remedy order has or has not been made.
It would be a backward step to revert to the quasi-Latin terminology of old, but some further modification of the language of divorce is needed to make it fit for purpose in an age when more people are applying for a divorce unaided. Clear, unequivocal language would also help solicitors and support organisations emphasise the importance of resolving financial remedy claims before applying for a final order of divorce.
Kadie Bennett is a senior associate in the matrimonial team at Anthony Collins. She is also the elected regional chair of Resolution’s West Midlands region. Her views on the language of divorce are being shared to coincide with Good Divorce Week 2025
No comments yet