News

Richard Kershaw examines whether you can re-open a divorce settlement due to Covid-19 in Edward Fennell’s Legal Diary

  • February 19, 2021
  • By Richard Kershaw, Partner

This article was originally published in Edward Fennell’s Legal Diary and can be accessed here

Can you re-open a divorce settlement due to Covid-19?

Since the gravity of the Covid-19 pandemic became clear, divorce lawyers have debated whether its financial impact could suffice to overturn a divorce settlement. The recent decision in FRB v DCA (No. 3) [2020] EWHC 3696 (Fam), in which a husband sought to reopen a £64m award made in March 2020, now offers a judicial perspective.

The family court places great weight on finality in divorce settlements, meaning subsequent events can only justify re-opening a case in exceptional circumstances. In general, there will need to have been an unforeseen and unforeseeable event which invalidates the basis of the order.

Where the settlement includes a lump sum payable in instalments, as in FRB v DCA, the court’s power is slightly broader. However, after the 2008 financial crash, the Court of Appeal made clear in Myerson v Myerson [2009] EWCA Civ 282 that “the natural processes of price fluctuation…however dramatic” will not justify reopening such a settlement.

In FRB v DCA, the final order of 30 March 2020 provided for the husband to pay the wife £64m in property and cash. Just before the first cash instalment became due on 30 September 2020, he applied to re-open the settlement due to Covid-19’s financial impact. His application failed, largely because he had not evidenced how the pandemic had impacted his financial position.

However, Mr Justice Cohen also pointed to the need to take a long-term view. He noted that the major stock market indices had rebounded to above their pre-Covid-19 levels and added “most commentators believe that at some stage within the next couple of years the world economy will be back to where it was”.

His words suggest that, as widely anticipated, it will be difficult to re-open divorce settlements due to Covid-19’s financial impact. Yet there may be cases where it seems clear that a party’s financial situation will not rebound – for example, if their business has collapsed due to the pandemic – in which case they may have a stronger argument. For others, adjusting the timing of payments, and varying the level of ongoing maintenance, may provide some relief.


Related News

Feb 26, 2021
Richard Kershaw considers the implications of Mr Justice Cohen’s judgment in FRB v DRC (No 3) in Family Law Week
Feb 25, 2021
Richard Kershaw examines the impact of market volatility on divorce settlements in Finance Monthly
Feb 24, 2021
Polly Atkins examines whether one can charge an ex-spouse rent whilst waiting for their home to sell
Feb 02, 2021
Amy Scollan discusses divorce and luxury assets
Feb 01, 2021
Richard Kershaw discusses recent case where an unmarried couple have been ordered to share investment assets
Jan 18, 2021
Family Mediation Week 2021
Nov 19, 2020
Jay Patel and Polly Atkins examine family law in the lead up to Brexit in Family Law Week
Nov 09, 2020
Richard Kershaw discusses trusts on divorce and their role in financial planning strategies
Nov 05, 2020
Hunters recognised in The Times Best Law Firms 2021
Nov 03, 2020
Rebecca Christie discusses economic abuse and its role in divorce in WealthBriefing

© Hunters Law LLP 2021 | Privacy NoticeLegal & Regulatory | Cookies Policy | Complaints Procedure.

Hunters Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (number 657218)

WARNING: Website falsely claiming to be Hunters Law

4 March 2021

The website 'hunterslawllp.com' is operating, falsely claiming to be Hunters Law. This website has been created to mirror the genuine site, although contact details including telephone number and email addresses have been changed, and the SRA verification badge does not work.

We have also been made aware of a series of faxes circulating, purporting to come from ‘barrister’ Dominik Opalinski, advising of an unclaimed inheritance of $16.95M, which feature the same website address. Dominik is a genuine partner of the firm, but is not a barrister.

We have reported this to the SRA, and contacted the website domain hosts to request its urgent removal. If you receive correspondence of a similar nature to that described, please contact us directly by reliable and established means.