Reconciliation during the process of a divorce is a not uncommon phenomenon, but it can in turn be followed by a subsequent second relationship breakdown which can cause procedural complexities in the divorce.

In this article, paralegal Yasmin Ghadamian examines the judge’s decision in HK v SS [2025] EWFC, in which the judge considered whether a delay caused by a 15-month reconciliation by the parties should prevent the court from making a final divorce order.

Background

The couple in this case were married for just short of 11 years, having married in June 2011. By 2022, the marriage had broken down. A sole divorce application was made by the applicant on 12 May 2022. The divorce was uncontested by the respondent. Therefore, the first stage of divorce, the “conditional order”, was granted on 27 October 2022.

The applicant was entitled to apply for the final order of divorce, which would have ended the marriage on or after 9 December 2022. If the applicant had not applied by then, the respondent could have applied on notice three months after that date. Neither party applied. The parties had reconciled in March 2023 but separated again in June 2024. The reconciliation had lasted some 15 months.

In August 2024, the applicant applied for the conditional order to be made final. The matter came before Deputy District Judge Wilkinson, who directed the applicant to file further information. This is because (under Family Procedure Rule 7.19 (5)), further evidence, in the form of a written explanation stating why the application has not been made earlier, is required where an application for a final order is made 12 months after a conditional order has been pronounced.

On 23 August 2024, the applicant’s solicitors emailed the court to state that the parties had reconciled in March 2023, but the marriage “sadly broke down again two months ago”. The facts as to reconciliation and separation were not in dispute. Both parties agreed that the final divorce order should now be made.

The deputy district judge referred the matter to His Honour Judge Simmonds as national lead judge for divorce on the basis that there was a lack of guidance as to how the court should exercise its discretion when parties had reconciled for a significant period (ie, more than 12 months).

His Honour Judge Simmonds directed the parties to make written submissions on how the court should exercise its discretion. The respondent did not provide a submission.

His Honour Judge Simmonds considered three issues:

1. Whether a conditional order should be made final where parties have reconciled for 15 months following the granting of the conditional order.
2. If not, whether the conditional order should be rescinded, and the divorce application be dismissed (which would have required a new divorce application to have been made at additional cost to the parties).
3. Generally, how the court should exercise its discretion pursuant to rule 7.19(6)(b) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, which states that a court may make such an order as it thinks fit. However, it says that where a conditional order is to be made final, that order must not take effect unless the court is satisfied that certain conditions have been met (including that no application for rescission of or appeal against the conditional order is pending).

Practical takeaway

Senior associate Jenny Bowden comments: “The judge concluded that reconciliation takes time, and parties should be permitted to take that time to reflect without worrying that their original application will become invalid due to the passage of time. Therefore, the original basis for the divorce should still stand during the reconciliation even when it extends beyond 12 months, because if the reconciliation was unsuccessful, the marriage remains irretrievably broken down. Also, if the judge were to refuse the application, either party could issue a new divorce application the following day. On this basis, the judge approved the application for the conditional order to be made final despite the period of reconciliation.”