Divorce

It is often assumed that divorce and family money in trust is the preserve of the ultra-wealthy but that isn’t always the case as was established by the court proceedings concerning Henry and Ellen Wodehouse. It is reported that the money placed in trust by the late Earl amounted to about £600,000 but the trust fund was a discretionary trust with 15 potential beneficiaries including Mr Wodehouse’s stepmother. Henry Wodehouse, the third son of the Earl of Kimberley, whose claim to fame was that he was the most married UK peer having tied the knot 6 times before his death , has hit the headlines as a result of his own divorce. Why is that newsworthy? Henry Wodehouse’s divorce has hit the headlines because the financial battle between him and his estranged wife centred on money held in trust, set up under the terms of his late father’s Will. The case of Henry and Ellen Wodehouse was the subject of media reporting after it was said that Mrs Wodehouse was reduced to living on her brother’s boat after losing a Court of Appeal case that centred on whether she should get a £90,000 payment. Trusts are also often thought of as ‘’old money’’ but in Mr Wodehouse’s case the money had been placed in trust by his late father, rather than generations earlier. When a family court considers divorce and trusts the court’s first consideration is whether the trust is a nuptial trust or a non-nuptial trust. If the court finds that the trust is a nuptial trust the court has wide powers and can change who benefits from the money in the trust. If the trust fund is found to be a non-nuptial trust then the family court powers are far more limited. Normally  the court would focus on awarding the spouse who was not a beneficiary of the trust fund all or a greater share of the family assets , on the basis that the spouse who was a discretionary beneficiary of the trust fund would likely receive either capital or income distributions from the trust fund. Sadly that solution didn’t work for Mrs Wodehouse as, other than her husband's very modest pension, there were no other assets as all the equity in the family home had been eaten up by secured debt, leaving the trust fund as the only asset of substance until the Court of Appeal ruled that the particular trust was of a type that could not be ordered to pay Mrs Wodehouse a lump sum payment or be ordered to pay the amount to Mr Wodehouse to then hand over to his ex-wife.   Mr and Mrs Wodehouse married in 1992 and separated in 2011. During the marriage   Mr Wodehouse had his share of financial difficulties, being made bankrupt in 1990 and 2010.  Mrs Wodehouse had health problems making working difficult. The couple went to court to sort out how their property and money should be split. It was ascertained that whilst they owned a family home there was no money in it as there was more debt secured against the house than equity in it. Where did that leave Mrs Wodehouse? The first judge said she should get a lump sum payment and a share of her husband's pension. Mr Wodehouse appealed to the Court of Appeal saying that he had no money to pay the lump sum and that the court could not expect the trust fund to pay the amount of £90,000 to Mrs Wodehouse. His barrister argued that the trust fund was a discretionary fund, Mr Wodehouse had no entitlement to the trust money and the trust had not been a party to the original financial court proceedings. The Court of Appeal, whilst expressing sympathy for Mrs Wodehouse’s financial predicament quashed the lump sum payment but it did maintain the pension sharing order that provides for Mrs Wodehouse to receive half of her former husband's police pension. The income from the pension is modest and will not go anywhere towards discharging the reported family debt. How can Evolve Family Law Manchester Divorce Solicitors Help? The Wodehouse case is a cautionary tale but it should not deter spouses from making financial claims involving trusts. Equally the case highlights the importance of estate planning. Had the money not been placed in trust by Henry Wodehouse’s late father it is debatable as to whether the money would still have been available for Mr and Mrs Wodehouse to litigate over given the creditor’s claims but, through use of estate planning, money has been preserved. For legal assistance with trusts and financial claims on divorce or any other aspect of family law please contact us. Appointments available in Manchester and Cheshire.

Few of us can't have been moved by the sight of photographs of Ant McPartlin being greeted by what appeared to be his rather boisterous Labrador dog after the two of them had spent time apart following his separation from his wife, Lisa. All specialist divorce and children solicitors know the theory behind child attachment and the damage that can be done if, as a result of a separation, one parent loses touch with a child. In an age where we treat our pets as mini humans, with doggie day care, and a vast array of outfits and treats, not to mention the doggie Christmas stocking, it really isn't surprising that as an experienced Manchester divorce solicitor I am increasingly asked 'who gets the dog' as part of the divorce and financial settlement negotiations. On many occasions I have gained the impression that the dog is just as important as money considerations. Many people without pets, and some family solicitors and judges, just don't get that. In my experience sometimes a husband or wife wants the dog as a means of hurting their spouse, knowing just how important the animal is to their husband or wife, or as a means of continuing control through allowing the occasional access visit. For other couples it is a genuine dilemma with both husband and wife thinking that the dog is better off with them. So if a couple just can't reach an agreement over who should get the dog then it can be left to a judge to make a decision as to the dog’s future. The Law On Who Gets Custody Of The Dog For dog lovers it is hard to credit but when it comes to divorce and financial settlement negotiations or court proceedings a dog is treated, in legal terms, as if he or she is a piece of furniture that just happens to be a living and breathing creature. What does that mean for the dog? Well it means that a divorce judge will not be able to decide on if the dog should stay with the husband or wife based on the judge’s assessment of the spouse who is most likely to meet the dog’s physical and emotional needs in the short and long term. Factors The Court Considers When Deciding Who Gets The Dog? What the court will not be influenced by is the doleful eyes and whimper. Instead the divorce court will look at factors such as: Who paid for the dog; and Was the dog given to the other spouse as a gift; and Who has paid to look after the dog, for example paid for the daily doggie day care or the vet’s fees? Nowhere on that list is the dog’s preference if he or she could have a say or even vote with their feet. [related_posts] Using The Dog As A Bargaining Tool Using a child and threats of child custody battles as a bargaining tool in financial settlement negotiations is depreciated but as an experienced Manchester divorce and financial settlement solicitor I still see cases where the dog is being used as a powerful bargaining tool in a divorce settlement. You can imagine the conversation, ‘’ you get Rover, and I get to keep the house’’.  Some spouses feel backed into a corner knowing that if a judge had to decide who gets the dog then the judge would not find in their favour, despite the dog being better off with them. Shared Custody Of The Dog It isn't that uncommon for a spouse to offer to share the care of the dog, often in a last ditch attempt to try and reach an agreement. For some couples that arrangement might work, especially where there are children and the dog and the children follow the same shared care parenting regime. For other households sharing the care of the dog would just add to the animal’s confusion, especially if there is no consistency in the dog’s routine or diet. What Can You Do To Gain Custody? When it comes to sorting out who the dog should live with you may need a tough negotiator, a solicitor who can stand back from the emotions and guide you on your legal options and the likely prospects of success if you were to pursue a court application for the dog.

We are always reading in the press about celebrities getting 'quickie divorces’. Today’s news that a woman whose divorce was refused by the Supreme Court ‘ will come as a surprise to many who assume that in the 21st century if you want to get divorced you can go ahead and do so. Read the full news story. As divorce solicitors, obtaining divorces on a daily basis we know that getting divorced isn’t plain sailing. The grounds for divorce Why did the Supreme Court refuse 68 year old Tini Owen’s request for a Decree Nisi of divorce from her husband? The 3 Judges agreed that the marriage had broken down, with Mr and Mrs Owen living in separate houses and there being no prospect of a reconciliation between the couple. However under current divorce law a petitioner or divorce solicitors asking the Court for a divorce not only have to establish that the marriage has broken down but also that the failure of the marriage is down to one of five specified reasons: • Adultery; • Unreasonable behaviour; • Separation for 2 years with your husband or wife's agreement to the divorce; • Desertion; • Separation for 5 years – you then don’t need your husband or wife's consent to the divorce. Can you get divorced? The Supreme Court Judges have decided Mrs Owens can't get a divorce based on her current divorce petition. Why? Well although it was agreed that the Owen marriage had broken down the Court wasn’t satisfied that Mrs Owen had established that Mr Owen had behaved unreasonably. As Mr Owen won't agree to a divorce based on 2 years separation that means Mrs Owen will need to wait until 2020, when she will have been separated 5 years, to start fresh divorce proceedings against Mr Owen.Ultimately Mrs Owen will get her divorce but if divorce solicitors are asked then the answer at the moment to the question ‘’can you get divorced’’ is not necessarily and not yet. What do divorce solicitors and family Courts consider to be unreasonable behaviour? Mrs Owen didn’t get her divorce because the Supreme Court wasn’t satisfied that Mr Owen had behaved unreasonably. Usually when a husband or wife starts divorce proceedings on the basis of unreasonable behaviour their spouse doesn’t challenge the reasons stated in the divorce proceedings. That is because the spouse sees the divorce paperwork as a means to a common goal of a divorce and a financial settlement. In Mrs Owen’s case her husband objected to the divorce and said he hadn’t behaved unreasonably. It has long been established by divorce Courts that unreasonable behaviour isn’t falling out of love or drifting apart from a spouse. There has to be some behaviour on the part of the spouse that is so unreasonable a divorce is justified. Lots of people assume unreasonable behaviour has to be pretty extreme such as an assault but divorce solicitors know that unreasonable behaviour comes in many different forms such as: • Financially controlling your husband or wife; • Belittling or demeaning your spouse; • Refusing to communicate or socialise with your husband or wife; • Failing to support your spouse, this could be emotionally, financially or in bringing up the children. There are numerous other examples of unreasonable behaviour. It is important to get legal advice from divorce solicitors before you start divorce proceedings. Why? Well it is important to detail enough allegations of unreasonable behaviour to make sure that the Court is satisfied that a spouse has behaved unreasonably but, on the other hand, the divorce petition shouldn’t be too extreme. If the allegations are too strong it may make it a lot harder to reach a parenting agreement and a financial settlement with your husband or wife. [related_posts] Will the allegations in the divorce proceedings affect the childcare arrangements or financial settlement? This question is often asked of divorce solicitors. It is very understandable as people fear that if they accept the unreasonable behaviour allegations in a divorce petition and don’t contest the divorce that they will end up not seeing the children or the Court will take into account the unreasonable behaviour allegations when deciding how the assets and property are split up. That is why it is important to get advice from divorce solicitors before you start divorce proceedings or agree to a divorce. Divorce solicitors can agree that although you are not contesting the divorce petition as you both want a divorce that if the allegations in the divorce petition are raised in any future financial or children Court proceedings you can contest and challenge what is said about you. In other words agreeing to the divorce petition is a means to an end whilst preserving your legal rights. For help from expert divorce solicitors on any aspect of divorce proceedings or for information on financial claims on divorce, contact us.

My partner and I can't agree whether I'm entitled to spousal maintenance. What can I do? If you can't reach an agreement over the amount of spousal maintenance then you can make an application to Court. The Court doesn’t have a set formula to say how much, if any, spousal maintenance should be paid. The Court has a lot of discretion to make what orders it thinks appropriate. The Court can also order lump sum payments and property transfer orders. These are separate but linked to spousal maintenance orders. This means that the less capital that a husband or wife receives then the greater the probability that they may need spousal maintenance in order to meet their income needs. Reaching a financial settlement is a bit like putting a jigsaw together as it is important that the capital, pension and income settlements meet needs. If I am entitled to spousal maintenance how long will the spousal maintenance last for? The Court can order different types of spousal maintenance or no spousal maintenance. Joint lives maintenance is often called the ‘’meal ticket for life’’ spousal maintenance in the media. Why? It is because the spousal maintenance continues throughout the joint lives of the payer and the payee until further order of the Court or until the payee remarries. A husband or wife can apply back to the Court to change the amount of maintenance payable upwards or downwards if there is a change in circumstances. It is also possible for the payer to apply to the Court to stop the spousal maintenance payments if there is a change in circumstances. Term spousal maintenance continues for a set number of years. The level of spousal maintenance can be changed before the term expires (but not afterwards). The term or length of time that spousal maintenance is paid for can be extended by the Court although there must be a good reason to do so and the application must be made before the term maintenance order expires. Term spousal maintenance with a bar is exactly the same as a term spousal maintenance order save that the length of time that the maintenance is paid for cannot be extended. Clean break order is when no spousal maintenance is payable. If the Court makes a spousal maintenance clean break order then a husband and wife can’t make a maintenance application, even if there is a change in their personal financial circumstances at a later date. I am worried about if I am entitled to spousal maintenance. What should I do? The best thing to do is to get some early legal advice. Why? If you are entitled to spousal maintenance then an urgent Court application for what is known as ‘’maintence pending suit’’ may be necessary. Even if your situation isn’t urgent it pays to get legal advice so that you understand what steps need to be taken to ensure that you are either able to negotiate spousal maintenance; get a Court spousal maintenance order; or apply to change the amount or extend the time that spousal maintenance is payable for. In some situations that involves looking at your ex-spouses income and financial circumstances and in others looking at your outgoings, career prospects and family circumstances. [related_posts] If you have been reading the news about the end of the "meal ticket for life" divorce case of Mr and Mrs Mills and you are either getting divorced or are a divorcee you may be concerned about the question ‘’am I entitled to spousal maintenance?”. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume from some of the press coverage of Mr and Mrs Mill’s financial Court proceedings that spousal maintenance is an old fashioned concept and that after their divorce spouses will, in future, have to stand on their own two feet and be financially independent of one another. A careful read of the Court decision in Mr and Mrs Mill’s case reveals that the question "am I entitled to spousal maintenance" is still a very valid question. How does the Mills decision affect the question ‘’am I entitled to spousal maintenance?’’ Why has Mr and Mills case hit the headlines? In the Mills case the dispute was over whether Mr Mills should pay his ex-wife increased monthly spousal maintenance payments. When the couple split up the Court ordered Mr Mills to pay spousal maintenance to Mrs Mills. In addition the Court gave Mrs Mills enough capital to buy a house. Fast forward nearly a decade and Mr Mills wanted to reduce the spousal maintenance payments and Mrs Mills wanted the spousal maintenance payments to increase as she’d made unwise financial investments and was in debt and renting a house. She therefore argued that as she had increased outgoings she needed more spousal maintenance to meet her basic needs. The Supreme Court has ruled that the original level of spousal maintenance payments must continue but that they won't be increased. So, those who say that the Mills case stops the ‘’meal ticket for life’’ are wrong. However the Mills case and other recent Court decisions do show an increased concern on the part of the divorce Court to really analyse if spousal maintenance should be paid and if so the amount of the spousal maintenance and how long it should be paid for. This is with a view to both husband and wife in appropriate family situations, being able to achieve financial independence of one another. One of the strong reasons behind the Court decision not to increase Mrs Mill’s spousal maintenance payments was the fact that at the time of the first financial proceedings Mrs Mills had been given enough cash to buy a house and so if she’d used the money wisely she wouldn't have needed more spousal maintenance to pay her debts and rent. The Court concluded her ex-spouse shouldn’t be penalised by her poor financial decisions a decade after the marriage had broken down. For help with your entitlement to spousal maintenance or to review an existing spousal maintenance order please contact us.  

Spousal maintenance is always a thorny topic, in many cases the person making the payments thinks that they are paying too much and for too long and the person receiving the spousal maintenance thinks that they are getting too little, taking into account child care responsibilities, lifestyle during the marriage or lack of qualifications or career experience over a long marriage. A husband and wife locked in a Court battle over maintenance payments after their separation in 2012 hit the news after a Court of Appeal ruling. The couple, William Waggott and his former wife, Kim Waggott split up in 2012, after a 21 year marriage. Mr Waggott was ordered to pay his wife a lump sum of nearly 10 million and spousal maintenance for life at the rate of £175,000 a year. The one thing that the husband and wife were agreed on was that the original Court ruling was unfair; the husband thinking that spousal maintenance for life gave Mrs Waggott no financial incentive to get a job and the wife thinking the amount was too low and needed to be adjusted by the date of the Court of Appeal hearing to take into account cost of living increases and Mr Waggott’s income. The battle lines were drawn with Mr Waggott applying to Court to stop the spousal maintenance for life and Mrs Waggott asking the Court for more maintenance. The Court of Appeal has ruled that Mrs Waggott’s spousal maintenance payments shouldn’t continue for life but instead end in three years’ time. The Court has also said that the amount of maintenance won't increase. As well as losing her spousal maintenance in three years Mrs Waggott also faces substantial legal costs. Reasoning behind the Court decision Mrs Waggott argued that her former husband's earnings capacity had been created during their 21 year marriage and that it was only right that she should continue to share the fruit of the marriage as her ex-husband's ongoing income was still a ‘’matrimonial asset’’. It was also argued, on Mrs Waggott’s behalf, that she should not have to invest some of the near 10 million she had received in 2012 to generate an income for herself, instead of getting ongoing spousal maintenance. It was said that would mean she was using her share of the capital of the marriage to live off when the 10 million was her entitlement to the family assets generated during the marriage. Mr Justice Moylan ruled that the former husband's future earnings capacity is not a ‘’matrimonial asset’’ and accordingly it doesn’t have to be shared with Mrs Waggott and that the wife could invest some off her lump sum and live off the interest or get employment. The Court is always keen to achieve what is known as a ‘’financial clean break’’ to sever the money ties between a husband and wife as soon as possible after a divorce. That will be achieved in the Waggott’s case in three years’ time when the maintenance payments stop. [related_posts] What does the ruling mean? In the press the Waggott Court of Appeal decision has been hailed as a victory for bread winners and the end of ‘’the meal ticket for life’’ of spousal maintenance. Does the decision mean that? The leading judge was careful to say that he acknowledged that long term maintenance can be required as part of a fair outcome in a divorce . There is therefore a danger in saying that the Waggott decision means there will be an end to spousal maintenance for life. In Mrs Waggott’s case she had received nearly 10 million and both she and her former husband had bought new houses for about 2 million each. That meant Mrs Waggott still had capital and, as importantly, had previously enjoyed a good career and so she could, in the judge’s opinion, adjust to the termination of her spousal maintenance payments without undue hardship. That won't be the case for many families where the economically weaker spouse has used all of their capital sum to pay for a new house, perhaps with a mortgage, and therefore doesn’t have the option of living off interest or the prospect of getting a well-paid job that will pay enough to cover the mortgage and bills. The frustrating thing about family Court decisions is that whilst they lay down principles of law the principles can't be applied rigidly to every family situation. Each Court decision is based on the individual’s personal and financial circumstances. That is why it is so important to get objective legal advice on what a ruling might mean for you and your family. Why? Because there is normally a range of Court orders that a Court could reasonably make in a given family situation rather than one ‘‘right answer’’. That’s why Court litigation is such a lottery as there is always a risk that you could be a loser in a Court battle. In light of this decision many breadwinners will want to review whether they should apply back to Court to stop their spousal maintenance payments for life and others will want advice on how to negotiate a clean break figure following the Court ruling. Equally those receiving spousal maintenance will need legal advice as Mrs Waggott’s case is a clear reminder, to both husband and wives, of the risks and costs of Court litigation. For help with any aspect of divorce and family finances or changes to an existing spousal maintenance order please contact us.

The race to start international divorce proceedings Most people assume, especially as we are currently part of the European Union, that if a couple decide to separate and get divorced it doesn’t matter which country they petition for divorce in as a ‘’divorce is a divorce’’. Well that response is both right and wrong. My apologies for giving a stereotypical ‘’on the fence’’ lawyer’s answer but whilst a husband or wife may achieve a divorce as a result of the decision to petition for a divorce in country A it may mean the husband or the wife's financial settlement is a lot less compared to if they had started the divorce proceedings in country B. The Court of Appeal has been hearing a case involving a German financier Oliver Thum and his wife, Catja, to decide whether to stop the divorce proceedings issued by Mrs Thum in London and to allow Mr Thum’s German divorce proceedings to go ahead: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5504825/German-financier-estranged-wife-divorce-battleground-dispute.html This scenario of a family with more than one divorce country to choose from is surprisingly common however when a husband or wife are separating they often don’t realise at that stage the financial significance of their decision to start Court proceedings in a particular country or they don’t have the means to challenge an estranged husband or wife's decision to commence the divorce in country A rather than B. In the Thum’s case it is agreed that Catja Thum started her divorce proceedings in London before her husband had issued proceedings in Germany. The question for the Court is whether her delay in sending her divorce petition to her husband should mean that her divorce petition is dismissed? That is an issue that the Court of Appeal judges are considering. It certainly won't be the last time this scenario comes before the Court for adjudication for whilst London is perceived to be ‘’the divorce capital’’ for large financial awards there will be always be a natural attraction for the economically weaker spouse to start Court proceedings in England. I am often asked to give preliminary advice where there is potentially more than one divorce Court jurisdiction and if advice is needed from an overseas lawyer as to whether it would be preferable to start divorce proceedings overseas then I can easily arrange this as I am a fellow of the International Academy of Family Lawyers, the world’s leading organisation of expert international family lawyers. [related_posts] Always seek expert advice If there is the potential to start divorce proceedings in more than one jurisdiction it is vital to get expert legal advice as quickly as possible on your options so that you preserve the ability to start divorce proceedings in the country of your choice. Sometimes people are reluctant to take the step of seeing a lawyer but an initial consultation doesn’t commit you to anything but gives you information to help you chose the right option for you. If that option is a divorce then early advice gives you the opportunity to choose the ‘‘right’’ country to initiate the Court proceedings in. For help with international divorce proceedings or financial settlements please contact us

Pilot faces a £600,000 payment and a freezing order after losing his Court battle over the enforcement of a family Court order. Whenever a divorcing couple end up in Court with a family judge making the decision on how their assets should be divided or how much spousal maintenance and child support should be paid there is always a risk that either the husband or wife or both of them may be very unhappy with the outcome of the Court proceedings and their Court Order. The dissatisfaction with a family Court judgement and financial order can lead to appeals against the decision or to orders being deliberately flouted in the hope that an ex-husband or wife won't want to launch further Court proceedings to enforce the original financial Court order. Sometimes financial Court proceedings can take on a life of their own. The media has recently highlighted the case of Richard Wilmot and his ex-wife Viki Maughan who have been engaged in a 16 year battle over payment of child support, with paternity of the youngest child being in dispute despite DNA testing. The Court has ruled that just shy of £600,000 should be paid to the ex-wife, consisting of child support arrears and legal costs. Importantly the Court has also made a freezing order freezing property, money in bank accounts as well as pension and insurance monies. The Court decision to freeze assets shows just how far family judges are prepared to go to make sure that Court orders are complied with. A read of the Court judgement emphasises just how exasperated the judge was by the ‘’utter folly’’ of the ex-husband’s actions resulting in him being ordered to pay nearly £600,000 when the child support arrears only amounted to about £115,000 with the rest of the monies being legal costs and the costs of specialists employed by the ex-wife to trace and recover the money. The case highlights the financial and emotional costs of engaging in a long drawn out Court battle but, perhaps more importantly, shows the long arm of the law, in this case over a 16 year period to enforce the payment of child support . [related_posts] In my view this unhappy Court saga reveals why it is so vital to try and reach an out of Court financial settlement that both an ex-husband and ex-wife can live with to avoid enforcement Court litigation and costs. That isn’t always possible. If a financial Court order has to be made by a judge it is important to take legal advice on appeal options and, if necessary, enforcement options to avoid the costs of the Court proceedings getting out of hand and ultimately, as in the case of Mr Wilmot, dwarfing the amount in dispute between husband and wife. If you need help with the terms of a financial settlement or a Court order please contact us.

An independent report on sharia law, commissioned by Teresa May when she was home secretary, reported last week on the operation of sharia law in England. The review was set up because of a concern that sharia law was being used as a second legal system in England and potentially sharia councils were discriminating against the women who use the councils to seek a divorce. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/applying-sharia-law-in-england-and-wales-independent-review Sharia law and councils have no legal standing in England and Wales. It is often reported in the media that sharia law is operating in Muslim communities in England and Wales. It is also said that sharia ‘’courts’’ are becoming a parallel legal system in England and Wales. The report highlights the misconceptions that many people and the media have over sharia law and confirms the fact that sharia councils are not ‘’courts’’ and the members of the council are not ‘’judges’’ and don’t make decisions that are legally binding in English law. Why the concern then about the operation of sharia councils? The worry that led to the commissioning of the independent report into sharia councils was that about 90% of the people who seek help from the councils are women wanting a divorce. Women are the main users of sharia councils as married men don’t need to apply to the council for an Islamic divorce as they can issue a Talaq – a unilateral declaration of divorce. Some will question the need for government concern over women securing Islamic divorces through sharia councils but the worry is that women are reaching financial agreements with their husbands over the division of family assets in order to secure their husband's consent to an Islamic divorce or that when sharia council members are unofficially ‘’mediating’’ agreements with a couple they are applying Islamic law rather than English law to how family assets should be divided and adopting a very different role to a qualified family mediator. That puts Muslim women at a financial disadvantage when seeking a divorce, in comparison to their contemporaries using the British Courts. So why would a woman go to a sharia council rather than to a traditional family law Court to get a divorce and a financial settlement? The report states that many women resort to using sharia councils because they underwent Islamic marriage ceremonies and therefore aren’t legally married under English law. In general that type of marriage can put women under a real financial disadvantage in comparison to women who have participated in an Islamic marriage as well as a British recognised civil ceremony. When coming to its recommendations the authors of the report recognised that to stop women being disadvantaged by turning to sharia law and councils the women needed an alternative redress: the family Court system. The report therefore proposes a change in the law to require those going through an Islamic marriage ceremony to have a civil recognised marriage ceremony. That would then mean that married men and women would have to apply to the Court for a divorce and a financial order. The report also highlights the need to educate on the availability of Court remedies even if a couple have used a form of ‘’mediation’’ or arbitration at a sharia council. That is because the ‘’agreement’’ reached at a sharia council may not reflect the financial outcome that a wife would reasonably expect to receive in an English family Court or is unaware of the options open to her after reaching an agreement as part of the package of getting her husband's agreement to an Islamic divorce. No doubt it will take a while for the report’s conclusions to be digested and fully considered by all the interested parties and any agreed actions implemented through changes in the law. In the meantime what should you do if you think that your only option is to apply to a sharia council for a divorce? Take legal advice from a specialist family solicitor. The sharia council may not be the only option available to you and getting legal advice on what a family Court would award you in divorce Court proceedings could make all the difference to whether or not you decide to use a sharia council , and if you do , the outcome of how family money and property is divided. For advice about any aspect of family or children law please call me on +44 (0) 1477 464020 or email me at louise@evolvefamilylaw.co.uk