In this instalment of their quarterly update, first published in the 6 June edition of New Law Journal, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz analyse three notable cases plus other recent developments in family law.

This update considers three recent reported cases, as well as two important developments in family law, namely, guidance for judges when writing to children, and an upcoming public consultation on the instruction of unregulated experts in children proceedings.

Vince v Vince

There has been much publicity in the legal and national press about the publication in December of two judgments in the matter of Dale and Kate Vince (Vince v Vince [2024] EWFC 389). This is not the first time Mr Vince has been the subject of high-profile court proceedings; many will have first come across the green energy entrepreneur in the 2015 Supreme Court proceedings brought by his former wife, Kathleen Wyatt.

The present proceedings occurred following the breakdown of Mr Vince’s marriage to Kate Vince. The parties were married in February 2006, but there was some debate in this case as to when the parties’ ‘marital relationship’ started. The judge, Mr Justice Cusworth, looked at the accumulation of markers of marriage that took their cohabiting relationship over the threshold into a quasi-marriage, and determined that February 2000 was the appropriate date for the start of their marital relationship. There was also some debate as to the precise date of their separation. The judge found the date of separation to be when Mr Vince left the family home in February 2022, rather than an earlier date when Mr Vince first communicated to Ms Vince that he felt the marriage was over. The judge concluded, therefore, that the marital relationship lasted 22 years, from February 2000 until February 2022.

After determining the length of the marriage and the net present value of Mr Vince’s main business, with the assistance of expert accountancy evidence, the court was then concerned with the determination of three key issues:

• Issue 1: How to treat significant political donations Mr Vince had made via his business to the Labour party in the lead-up to the general election, and to the Green Britain Foundation.
• Issue 2: The value to be ascribed to Mr Vince’s pre- and post-marital efforts in the business and how they should affect Ms Vince’s entitlement to share in the business’s value.
• Issue 3: As Mr Vince had made significant efforts to sell the business in 2022, whether he should now be able to claim any discounts for realisation costs, illiquidity or uncertainty as against the sum due to Ms Vince. This was on the basis that he was now choosing to continue running the business (rather than selling it or having Ms Vince retain shares in it, as was his previous position).

In summary, the court concluded as follows:

Issue 1: Ms Vince argued that donations made by Mr Vince out of company assets to the Green Britain Foundation and the Labour party were made with the intention of reducing her financial claims to the tune of around £12m. Therefore, these sums should be treated as being made from Mr Vince’s own share of the assets, not the overall financial resources. The judge did not agree with this approach. He considered that the donations to the Labour party were reasonable ones for Mr Vince to have made at the time. Further, as Mr Vince had made these donations through a company rather than personally, the court did not have the power to set these transactions aside. Regarding the donations to the Green Britain Foundation, which were earmarked but not yet paid, the judge found that these earmarked resources could still be regarded as part of the business’s value.

Issue 2:

• Value ascribed to post-marital endeavour. The marriage ended in 2022. The date of trial was some 34 months later (with no undue delay to trial found). The judge determined that Mr Vince and some ‘major external factors’ had contributed to the business’s growth since the parties’ separation. The judge said the value of the business should be as at the time of the hearing. However, the post-marital period should be treated as being part of the ‘pre-marital’ contribution period, during which time the husband’s contributions were ‘unmatched’ by Ms Vince.
• Value ascribed to pre-marital endeavour. The judge concluded that a fair approach was to determine the marital period as a proportion of the whole period of the business’s existence to date. He determined that the premarital period was from April 1995 (being the date of the origins of the husband’s business success) until the date of separation, February 2000. He calculated that the marital partnership was 264 months, which was 74.16% of the period during which the business’s value was being acquired.

Issue 3: In keeping with current case law, the judge highlighted that the overall allocation of the parties’ assets by application of the sharing principle effected a fair balance of risk and illiquidity between the parties. The judge found that he should not apply a discount to Ms Vince’s share because Mr Vince chose to retain the business. However, before quantifying the matrimonial value of the business, he would deduct the overall value from the net cost required to extract the monies needed by way of dividend to buy out Ms Vince’s capital claims. The matrimonial element of the business was valued at £83.6m. Ms Vince’s sharing claim in relation to that was, therefore, £41.8m. This was to be paid in three tranches. After a long marriage, it resulted in Ms Vince receiving 37.9% of the total assets.

Transparency in Vince v Vince

In a second judgment in this case ([2024] EWFC 406), the judge dealt with matters of transparency and media reporting. Essentially, the judge found that where a transparency order is in place and has been served, non-attending journalists, as well as attending journalists, may see court documentation and report on proceedings. Previously, it was understood that the transparency order applied only to reporters who attended the hearing.

The judge found: ‘Whilst… guidance was plainly drafted in anticipation of the dissemination of documents to actual attendees, it cannot have been its intention that once any such documents were in the hands of a particular reporter, no other would ever have sight of their contents unless the first reporter chose to publish them… What, however, will remain important is that court documents are only released to reporters who have been served with the transparency orders in each case, and that they will remain bound by its terms throughout their reporting. Any further, contentious documents should not be released to reporters prior to their production in court, so as any case specific issues can be considered and dealt with prior to any reporting’ (para [9]).

ON v ON

ON v ON [2024] EWFC 379 addresses the issue of fraudulent non-disclosure by a husband in an arbitration process and whether this non-disclosure was material to the award made by the arbitrator. If so, what adjustments should be made to the final order to reflect the non-disclosure?

The wife applied to set aside an award handed down in arbitration two years earlier on the basis of the husband’s material non-disclosure. The judge concluded that while arbitration is a non-court-based process, it does not absolve parties from their ongoing disclosure obligations. The duty commences from the moment Form E is due and continues until the conclusion of the proceedings. Accordingly, the arbitration award was set aside, and the wife was awarded an additional sum, together with an order that the husband meet her costs.

WZ v HZ

District Judge Doman gave guidance on how to proceed when a spouse refuses to cooperate with the sale of the former matrimonial home, remains in occupation and there is a home rights notice in place.

In this instance (WZ v HZ [2024] EWFC 407 (B)), the parties separated in 2018 after a 13-year marriage. The final order provided for the wife to receive £650,000 from the sale proceeds following the sale of the former matrimonial home to enable her to meet her capital needs. At the time of the final order, the family home had been valued at £920,000. By the time of these proceedings, offers had been made in the region of £1.2m. Despite this, the wife remained in the family home and was extremely obstructive in facilitating the sale process.

District Judge Doman invoked the Thwaite jurisdiction (which arises where orders remain executory) and considered that where a party’s conduct undermines the original intention of an order, the court has the authority to adjust the financial provisions made under that order. Consequently, the judge reduced the wife’s housing provision to £545,000, reallocating £130,000 to meet the husband’s costs (incurred due to her conduct). He also ordered the wife to vacate the property and reduced her spousal maintenance payments pursuant to the order (those having continued, in part, by virtue of her obstruction to the sale of the property).

The case provides clear guidance to practitioners where a spouse remains in occupation and deliberately obstructs the sale of a property in contravention of the intention of an order.

Guidance on writing to children

In February 2025, the president of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, issued guidance for judges on writing to children regarding the outcome of court proceedings. Given the significance of many decisions relating to children as regards their future following legal proceedings, writing to children to explain their decision can be pivotal in helping a child understand or come to terms with the outcome and help them move forward with their lives.

As the president notes, the benefit of judges communicating with the child at the centre of proceedings has long been recognised, yet this is rarely done in practice. Writing to children is one important way of ensuring they have had the opportunity to participate in family proceedings and feel that their voices have been heard.

The guidance is intended as a ‘toolkit’ for judges to help them decide if and how to write to the child involved. There are worked examples to illustrate how best to communicate an outcome to a child and key points to consider, such as the judge explaining their role in the proceedings, the purpose of the letter, acknowledging any wishes and feelings shared by the child during the proceedings and explaining why a particular decision has been made. Importantly, any letter should be tailored to their individual needs and circumstances.

The president hopes writing to children will become the norm in children law proceedings.

Unregulated experts in children proceedings

In March 2025, the Family Procedure Rule Committee announced proposals for tighter restrictions on instructing unregulated experts in children proceedings. A public consultation has been launched following concerns from parents, family law professionals, the media and MPs about the appointment of experts who do not possess the requisite qualifications yet provide evidence on which potentially life-changing decisions are made. Such decisions include who a child will live with, what the contact arrangements might be or whether a child should be placed in the care of a local authority.

The proposed amendments to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR) would require experts instructed in children proceedings to be regulated (subject to certain exceptions, which would require justification). The aim is that the expert appointed should have the appropriate skillset and qualifications on which to base their evidence. Further, a new definition will be inserted into the FPR so that the expert should be regulated by a UK statutory body, appear on a register accredited by the Professional Standards Authority or be regulated by an approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007.

The focus of the concerns has centred around psychological assessments and diagnoses, in particular those undertaken by ‘psychologists’ who are not regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC). At present, there are nine titles protected by law, which include clinical psychologists and educational psychologists. Anyone using those protected titles must be on the HCPC register and are, therefore, regulated. Experts using the title ‘psychologist’ alone are not HCPC-regulated but may be on an accredited voluntary register instead. The absence of regulation does not, therefore, provide an avenue to raise concerns about the standard and conduct of these experts.

In the case of Re C (‘parental alienation’; instruction of expert) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam), [2023] All ER (D) 69 (Feb), Sir Andrew McFarlane dismissed the appeal of a mother regarding the instruction of an unregulated psychologist who had provided evidence to the court on parental alienation. He considered that regulation of the title ‘psychologist’ was a matter for Parliament. In practice, the proposed amendments are intended to make it harder to instruct an expert who is not subject to any regulated body and improve the standard of evidence presented to the court.

You can find further information regarding our expertise, experience and team on our Divorce and Family page.

If you require assistance from our team, please contact us or alternatively request a call back from one of our lawyers by submitting this form.

Subscribe – In order to receive our news straight to your inbox, subscribe here. Our newsletters are sent no more than once a month.