Matrimonial Finance

Matrimonial Finance also known as financial remedy is what happens when a married couple go through divorce. Just because you obtain the interim order (used to be called the Decree Nisi) or the final order (formerly known as the Decree Absolute), that does not deal with the money side of separation and divorce.

For full disclosure, I do more property and estate work than matrimonial finance. I would not claim to be a matrimonial ‘specialist’ at this stage. However, it is an area of my practice that is growing and which tends to overlap with my other work.

I have a number of solicitors that like to instruct me in matrimonial finance proceedings particularly when there is a dispute about beneficial ownership. Usually, this is to do with the matrimonial home but it can be second properties. These sort of proceedings are matrimonial but they overlap with what is called ‘TOLATA’ claims. TOLATA claims are my bread and butter and what I routinely act in. When they are brought within matrimonial dispute they are referred to as ‘intervenor’ claims.

A typical scenarios look like this:

  • The parents of one of the spouses claiming that they have a beneficial interest in the matrimonial home. This is usually to do with how the deposit was raised.
  • A sibling of a spouse claiming that they have a beneficial interest in a property.
  • A property which is held in a family members name but which a spouse is alleged to have beneficial ownership in.

I represent clients in First Appointments (FDA), Financial Dispute Resolution hearings (FDR) and final hearings.

Some of my past cases:

DP v LP 

I represented the husband at both the First Directions Appointment and also the Financial Dispute Resolution. The parties were able to agree to terms at the FDR. The Wife continued to allege that the Husband had hidden ‘crypto assets’ which he denied. Needs based case with significant debt on both sides which centred around whether some debt was matrimonial or not.

ML v CL and The Official Receiver 

Represented the Husband in an application made by Wife to annul Husband’s bankruptcy. The Wife alleged the Husband made himself bankrupt to frustrate matrimonial finance proceedings. Arguments over whether the Husband was cash flow insolvent and the significance of a Capital Gains Tax liability.


Represented the Husband at interim hearings regarding an application by a third party to intervene in the matrimonial finance proceedings who was resident in Zimbabwe. Successfully represented Husband at the final hearing. Issues concerning the authenticity of a purported deed of trust, beneficial interest in the former matrimonial home and sharing of the other matrimonial property. Matter was settled on the first day of the final hearing.

SD v KD and SN

Represented the proposed intervener at a Financial Dispute Resolution hearing. Husband claims he has a beneficial interest in the Intervenor’s property based on claiming monies used for the purchase were not a gift. I represented the Intervenor.

SN v PN and SK

Represented the Husband at a First Directions Appointment. Identified that there was an arguable case for the Husband’s mother to intervene in the matrimonial finance proceedings on the basis she has a beneficial interest in real property obtained by the couple before they were married. I represented the Husband.