Author: Sarah Walker

In recent years, financial disputes arising from divorce or separation have continued to be dominated by Baby Boomers, many of whom hold substantial wealth in traditional assets such as property and equities. By contrast, younger adults typically hold a more varied and less conventional mix of assets. They may marry later or not at all and they frequently co-habit and have children without getting married. The evolution of this carries significant implications for modern family law.

A common theme among younger generations is the changing pattern of relationships, with shifting societal expectations and evolving gender roles, particularly for women. While fewer people marry at a young age, divorce remains common and reflects broader changes in how relationships are formed, maintained and dissolved.

At Edwards Family Law, we are increasingly advising younger clients whose financial circumstances differ markedly from those of their parents at the same age. Almost half of divorces happen in the first 10 years of marriage, and the average age at divorce is 45 for men and 42 for women. This shift is reshaping the issues that emerge during divorce and separation and heightening the need for tailored, nuanced legal guidance.

Younger people hold more diverse and non-traditional assets

Younger generations often possess a wider range of assets from their parents, including cryptocurrency portfolios, digital businesses, intellectual property, overseas holdings, stock options, and interests in early stage or high-risk private companies. Many also generate income from multiple sources, such as freelance work, online businesses, content creation, or influencer activity.

This diversification of assets and income streams can complicate the financial disclosure and negotiation process during divorce or separation, requiring careful analysis and a more bespoke approach to valuation and division. Money plays a central role in these proceedings, as English law has developed a strong emphasis on fairness in the division of assets on divorce. The Court recognises that non-financial contributions such as caring for children or running the household are important factors when determining a fair division of assets, alongside financial contributions.

Cohabitation without marriage

It is now common for younger couples to cohabit for many years and to have children together without marrying. During their relationship they may purchase property together, renovate or invest in one another’s homes, or establish joint business ventures.

However, because the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 does not apply to unmarried couples, they cannot rely on the same legal framework as married couples when disputes arise. When unmarried couples split or separate, they cannot apply to the Court for spousal maintenance, lump sums or pension sharing for their own benefit. However, they can bring claims relating to their interest in a property and/or a claim for the benefit of children.

Where a dispute concerns property or land following the separation of an unmarried couple, a claim may be brought under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA), enabling the Court to determine the parties’ respective interests or order the sale of the property.

Additionally, Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 (“Schedule 1”) empowers the Court to make financial provision for the benefit of a child or children of unmarried parents who have separated, ensuring that suitable arrangements can be made even in the absence of marriage.

Applications made pursuant to TOLATA and Schedule 1 are becoming more and more frequent. However, these applications present a distinct set of challenges. They often require careful analysis of property rights, contributions, and intentions. Unlike matrimonial proceedings, the Court’s powers pursuant to TOLATA and Schedule 1 are more limited, making expert advice essential to achieving a fair outcome.

Pre-nuptial agreements

Since the landmark Supreme Court decision in Radmacher v Granatino (2010), pre-nuptial agreements have gained greater recognition and weight within English family law. The ruling established that, provided certain safeguards are met (including that both parties have entered the agreement freely, with a full appreciation of its implications, and without undue pressure), the Court should give effect to a pre-nuptial agreement unless it would be unfair to do so. Following this judgment, there has been a notable rise in the popularity of prenuptial agreements as couples seek to protect their interests from the very beginning of their marriage.

Now that it is commonplace for young people to live together and raise children without getting married, many younger people take a more pragmatic approach to marriage and are cognisant of the financial implications of taking this step. The idea of marriage and weddings has evolved, with many recognising that how couples begin their partnership, whether through a wedding ceremony or cohabitation, can set the tone for their future together. Younger people are also getting married later by which time they may have built up more non-matrimonial wealth. Many individuals feel they lack the self-knowledge necessary for a successful marriage in their 20s, and education gained from past relationships or experiences can inform better financial decisions and healthier partnerships moving forward.

The anticipated “Great Wealth Transfer” (the transfer of assets from Baby Boomers to younger generations) has also contributed to the growing number of younger couples entering into pre-nuptial agreements, who feel an obligation to protect the wealth that was not built up by them but by their parents. Many Millennials and Gen Z adults expect to inherit substantial assets during their lifetime, often in the form of property, investments, business interests, or family trusts. In anticipation of this, parents and grandparents are increasingly encouraging or requiring pre-nuptial agreements as a condition for preserving family wealth.

As a result, younger people are now approaching marriage with greater financial awareness and a desire to protect future inheritances or gifts that may otherwise become vulnerable on divorce. Pre-nuptial agreements provide a clear, legally recognised framework for safeguarding non-matrimonial assets, managing expectations, and reducing conflict should the relationship break down. For many, experiences from the past, such as previous relationships or divorce, have changed their expectations, leading to more realistic views in new partnerships. This shift reflects not only changing economic realities, but also a growing acceptance of pre-nuptial agreements as a sensible and responsible part of modern financial planning.

Clean break vs. Ongoing Spousal Maintenance

Younger divorcing or separating couples have many more years ahead of them to accumulate and build up wealth. Younger couples in their twenties, thirties and forties may well have high incomes but a lower asset base than their parents. They may also have young children and the legal issues arising from this can be challenging. When going through divorce, individuals must deal with: the initial shock and the adjustment to new circumstances. Although the court has a statutory duty to consider if a clean break is appropriate under Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act where there is a low asset base and a significant disparity in a divorcing or separating couple’s income the court may order ongoing spousal maintenance.

However, if the parties divorcing or separating are young it is likely to be for a relatively short term. A short period of spousal maintenance can provide necessary security while the financially weaker party adjusts, returns to work, or takes on childcare responsibilities. The Court will still aim to move towards a clean break when it becomes fair to do so, but in the short to medium term, maintenance may be essential to meeting needs and ensuring a just outcome.

Why specialist legal guidance matters for younger couples who are divorcing and separating

Younger couples face unique financial and legal challenges in divorce and separation, from diverse assets to childcare responsibilities. Emotions can run high during these moments, making it crucial to have a supportive team by your side. Specialist legal guidance is essential to ensure fair outcomes, protect future wealth, and navigate the complexities of modern family life. At your lowest point, maintaining hope and resilience is vital, and having friends and professionals who understand what you are going through can make all the difference.

At Edwards Family Law, we support younger clients by helping them:

Understand their rights regarding pre-marital and marital assets
Deal with issues surrounding business interests or equity packages, addressing both the practical and emotional aspects that matter
Navigate issues around short or medium length marriages
Ensure long-term financial stability after divorce or separation
Negotiate fair settlements arising from divorce or separation without unnecessary conflict

The legal system now actively encourages separating couples to use mediation and collaborative law to resolve matters outside of court, helping families deal with conflict more amicably. Additionally, the family court system has moved towards digitisation, with online application portals and virtual hearings becoming increasingly common, making the process more accessible.

If you are a younger professional or entrepreneur navigating divorce, or if you want to protect your assets before marriage, Edwards Family Law is here to provide clear, expert guidance tailored to your circumstances. Our dedicated team of professionals is committed to helping you make positive things happen, with friendship, hope, and support at the heart of everything we do.

Spouses who are seeking a divorce outside of England and Wales need to be aware of the potential pitfalls associated with Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 or “Part III”.

Even if you live abroad, if you do retain connections to England or Wales you should still take specialist family law advice in this jurisdiction to assess your position.

You should instruct a family lawyer who is experienced in dealing with the complexities of international divorce, including jurisdictional issues and financial claims.

Part III applications are a potential route for individuals who have been divorced overseas to seek financial provision in England and Wales.

What is Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984?

The purpose of Part III is to help a party who has received no or inadequate financial provision in a foreign court where there are substantial connections to the UK.

Part III also applies to those who have obtained a legal separation abroad, allowing them to seek financial relief in England and Wales.

An applicant who has an overseas decree for divorce, annulment or legal separation can make an application if they can prove one of the jurisdictional requirements.

The jurisdictional requirements for a Part III claim are set out in section 15(1) of the MFPA 1984.

The two stages of a Part III application

The Permission Stage

The court’s permission is required to make an application under Part III. In order to grant permission, the court will need to consider that there is a “substantial ground” for making an application. “Substantial ground” is not defined within the statute and so we have to look to the case law to interpret this.

In the ongoing case of Potanina v Potanin, the Supreme Court clarified the threshold for applying for permission to bring proceedings. In this case the parties married in Russia and lived there throughout the marriage. During the marriage, the husband accumulated wealth estimated to amount to in excess of $20 billion. Most of the assets were held in various trusts and corporate vehicles, through which the husband was the beneficial owner. The parties divorced in Russia in 2014. The wife received only a tiny fraction of the overall wealth.

In 2014 the wife obtained a UK investor visa and bought a property in London, shortly thereafter she made London her permanent home. In October 2018, the wife made an application to bring a claim under Part III based on her habitual residence in England. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court (and has subsequently been heard again in the Court of Appeal). The Supreme Court confirmed the guidance given in the case of Agbaje v Agbaje [2010] UKSC13 (“Agbaje”) that the word “substantial” means “solid”. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the threshold is higher than merely satisfying the court that the claim is not totally without merit or abusive, but it does not need to be as high as “good arguable case”. The test is more akin to the “real prospect of success” test for resisting summary judgment.

The Supreme Court also found that the previous practice of applying for permission without notice to the other side was procedurally unfair. Given the Supreme Court’s comments about this, going forward all permission hearings are likely to be heard on notice.

The Substantive Stage

Once permission has been granted, the court will rigorously evaluate the merits of the case. Before it makes an order, the court must consider whether in all the circumstances of the case it would be appropriate for the order to be made by a court in this country. In Zimina v Zimin [2017] EWCA Civ 1429, the Court of Appeal emphasised the statutory requirement to consider “all the circumstances of the case”. In deciding what is appropriate the court will approach the matter broadly and have regard to the statutory purpose of Part III to alleviate hardship in cases of foreign divorce.

The court has a broad discretion and may make orders analogous to those available on an English divorce, subject to the purpose and constraints of Part III. However, if the jurisdiction for an application is based solely on the basis of the matrimonial home being in England, the court’s powers are more limited.

The Court’s Approach

In the case of Agbaje the Supreme Court emphasised that Part III must not be abused and that it is not the purpose of the statute to allow a party with some English connections to take advantage of what is perceived to be a more generous approach of the English and Welsh courts to financial provision. Nor should it be used to obtain a “second bite of the cherry”.

However, in a case where the English connections are strong, there may be no reason why the application should not be treated as if it were made in ordinary English financial remedy proceedings. In making an award under Part III the court must consider section 16 of the MFPA 1984 which requires it to have regard to (amongst other things): (i) any financial provision already received pursuant to the foreign divorce: (ii) the connection the parties have to England and to any country outside England and Wales; (iii) the availability in England and Wales of any property in respect of which an order in favour of the application could be made; (iv) the extent to which the order made is likely to be enforceable. The court often draws guidance by analogy from section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 if the English connections are strong.

Practical Considerations

If you do have strong connections to England, it may be worth considering whether it is worth pursuing a foreign divorce given the ability of the English courts to make further financial provision pursuant to Part III. In that situation a family could end up incurring the cost of two sets of legal proceedings. This is something to consider carefully at the outset of a divorce even if you are living abroad. Enforcement options for financial orders under Part III include freezing assets and selling properties to satisfy the court’s decision.

An applicant who has an overseas divorce can make a Part III application if they can evidence a sufficient connection to England and Wales. Part III applications allow individuals who have divorced abroad to seek financial relief in England and Wales if they meet specific jurisdictional criteria. The Potanina v Potanin ruling may impact the frequency and success of Part III applications.

Our Expertise

At Edwards Family Law, we have significant experience advising on complex Part III applications. This includes our Partner, Sarah Walker, who worked on the landmark Supreme Court case of Potanina v Potanin, and including when it was later remitted to the Court of Appeal.

Pension: what happens if my ex removes money from their pension before the order is implemented or does not cooperate with the implementation of a pension sharing order?

Pensions have been a hot topic in recent months, with the long-awaited budget changing the rules for employee contributions. From April 2029, the amount exempt from National Insurance contributions will be capped at £2,000 a year. You or your ex may choose to divert some of your salary over the next three years to make the most of this tax incentive to bolster your pension. In England and Wales, all pension assets that are built up during the marriage are taken into account on divorce.

Pensions are often one of the most significant assets for separating couples, after the family home. In fact, pensions are often amongst the most valuable asset in a divorce or dissolution. Even if pension assets were built up during the marriage, the Court will consider the entirety of the pension assets when assessing a fair distribution of assets to meet needs.

Ensuring your pension rights are secure after your separation is extremely important. Many people do not realise that an ex can technically access or draw down from their pension before a pension sharing order is implemented, and when it happens, the financial consequences can be serious. There are legal routes to address this, and acting quickly can make a huge difference.
A pension sharing order is a formal court order required for the division of pension assets, and it cannot be implemented by pension providers without this court order. All joint assets, including pensions, are considered in the financial settlement as part of the overall divorce settlement involving other assets and other marital assets.

What is a pension sharing order

When you divorce, there are several approaches to dividing pension assets. One of the most common is a pension sharing order. A pension sharing order is a formal court order required to divide pension assets, and it can apply to a range of pension schemes, including registered pension schemes, occupational pension schemes, personal pensions, and retirement annuity contracts. Please see our article here; “How International Pensions Are Divided Upon Divorce” for more information about the other options for dividing pensions.

A pension sharing order provides one spouse with a percentage share (also known as a pension credit) of their ex’s pension pot. The final order should set out:

the percentage of pension to be transferred to you; and

include wording that your ex should not intentionally claim, draw down, transfer or deal with the pension before implementation of the order.

When does the pension sharing order need to be implemented by?

The implementation period for pension sharing orders is up to four months beginning with the later of the day on which the order takes effect (either from the date of final order in divorce proceedings or 28 days from the date of the order) or the first day the pension trustees receive all the necessary documents.

During the implementation period, the pension provider must transfer the pension share into a new or existing pension scheme, which may include the original pension scheme, depending on the recipient’s preference and scheme rules. Most pension schemes charge implementation fees for pension sharing orders, typically ranging from £300 to £1,500. The implementation period is generally four months from the date the order is received by the pension provider, although some providers may complete the process more quickly in straightforward cases.

What if my ex removes money before the order is implemented?

Pensions are a complex area of law. If your ex removes money from their pension before the order takes effect, correcting the issue becomes complicated.

Each case is unique, however one route to rectify the problem is to apply to court to set aside the order pursuant to the “Thwaite” jurisdiction. In exceptional circumstances, the court could exercise this jurisdiction if an order has not yet been implemented or it has only been partly implemented. In the recent case of AP v TP [2025] EWHC 190(b) the court exercised its jurisdiction under Thwaite to set aside a pension sharing order after the final divorce order had been pronounced, in circumstances where the wife refused to cooperate with the pension sharing order’s implementation and the husband could not retire without access to the pension funds.

Alternatively, if the court cannot set aside the order, you may be able to seek a lump sum to compensate you for the loss caused by the withdrawal. Whether this is appropriate will depend on the type of pension involved, the extent of the loss, and the overall financial circumstances of the case. It is also important to note that even if a lump sum is awarded, you may not be able to pay it back into a pension in full without triggering tax charges or breaching pension contribution limits. For this reason, you should seek specialist legal advice before taking any action, to ensure you understand the most effective and tax-efficient way to resolve the issue. For complex pensions, it may be necessary to appoint a Pension on Divorce Expert (PODE) or actuary to assist with valuation to ensure a fair outcome. Legal representation is crucial in navigating the court process and protecting your interests during proceedings related to a pension sharing order.

Why Early Legal Advice Matters

The longer the delay, the more complicated the problem becomes. Pension schemes have different rules, and the financial impact can snowball if not addressed promptly.

How can Edwards Family Law help?

As a boutique family law practice, Edwards Family Law has a lot of experience dealing with complex pension sharing orders, including resolving issues when someone transfers money out before implementation.