A Very Short History of Financial Settlements on Divorce in England

Although divorce was more accepted in the medieval era, by the 1500s it was no longer permitted by the Catholic Church. Couples wanting to separate had to obtain an annulment or a separation from the Ecclesiastical Courts. 

At this time, married women had no legal identity separate from their husband. They could not own property or earn money. There was, therefore, an obligation for husbands to support their wives financially. 

When hearing a case for annulment or separation, the Ecclesiastical Court could order a husband to make maintenance payments to his wife. However, if the husband could persuade the Court that his wife was “guilty” of causing the breakdown of the marriage, he would not have to make any payments. Even if the wife was “innocent”, the Ecclesiastical Court found in Hawkes v Hawkes (1828) 1 Hag Ecc 526 that the wife should receive one-fifth of her husband’s net income, with the Judge saying, “she is as it were under a cloud.” 

The first divorce in England was granted by an Act of Parliament in 1667. Although this method of divorce was only accessible to the upper classes, parliamentary divorces became increasingly common in the following centuries. 

As part of the process of parliamentary divorce, the House of Commons created the role of “The Ladies’ Friend”. The member known as the Ladies’ Friend ensured that the husband in a divorce set up a trust to provide for his wife financially, whether she was “guilty” or “innocent”.  

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 granted all couples in England and Wales the right to divorce. The Court could order a husband to set up a trust for his wife or pay her maintenance directly. 

However, the Court’s reluctance to make financial provision for a “guilty” wife continued until the 1970s when Lord Denning found that, short of gross and obvious conduct issues, the Court should not reduce one party’s financial settlement because of their guilt for the breakdown of the relationship (Ackerman v Ackerman [1972] Fam 1). 

In 2000, the seminal judgement in White v White [2000] 1 AC 596 introduced the principle of the “yardstick of equality”. This meant both parties’ contributions to the marriage would be valued equally, whether they had worked within or outside the home. In determining a fair financial settlement, the starting point would be an equal division of the parties’ assets. The Court would then deviate from this in order to meet both parties’ needs. 

The case of Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 found that Pre-Nuptial Agreements, while not binding, could carry significant weight, provided certain criteria were met in the drafting of the agreement. This gave parties the ability to deviate from the “yardstick of equality”, provided the outcome was fair.  

The recent case of Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26 marks another development to the sharing principle. This case limits the extent to which non-matrimonial property, such as investments built up by one party before the marriage, will be treated as matrimonial property. This, again, gives parties more leeway to deviate from the principles established in White v White. 

Over the years, case law has developed principles for determining financial settlements on divorce which have become increasingly fair to both parties, while maintaining a degree of flexibility. The law continues to adapt to societal changes, with a consultation on financial remedies for cohabiting couples forming part of the current government’s manifesto. 

For more information on financial remedies on divorce, please contact Rebecca Curran, Paralegal in the Family Law Department at SE-Solicitors, on 01295 204055, or by email at rcurran@se-solicitors.co.uk