A new survey from Charles Russell Speechlys, shows that the majority of family lawyers believe there should not be a maximum period for the term of spousal periodical payment orders (SPPOs) (often referred to as “spousal maintenance” or “alimony”).
In a debate hosted by the law firm on 19th November between a number of esteemed barristers from the family law bar, followed by a conversation with the respected former High Court Judge, Sir Philip Moor, more than 4 in 5 (83%) of the family lawyers present voted against imposing a cap on the term of maintenance.
It was argued that a one size approach does not fit all or reflect how households in the UK have evolved over the past 50 years since the introduction of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
SPPOs are usually made when there is a significant difference in income between spouses and only when one spouse ‘needs’ ongoing maintenance to be paid to them by their ex-spouse.
The Law Commission is considering a reform to SPPOs, as part of its investigation into whether the 50-year-old law on financial remedies on divorce is working effectively and delivering fair and consistent outcomes.
One possible avenue of reform could be to follow the three-year cap on SPPOs as is the case under Scottish law or a five-year cap as proposed by Baroness Ruth Deech in her most recent private members bill in 2017. Maintenance on a divorce in Scotland is dealt with very differently to the current law of England and Wales and maintenance orders are limited in scope. William Longrigg, Partner and Head of the Family group at Charles Russell Speechlys, said:
“Maximum periods for spousal periodical payments orders offer consistency, but they can be a bit of a blunt instrument. The range of family structures in this country is very different from what it was fifty years ago, and we need flexible legislation that takes into account the complex and differing needs of the parties involved when making a spousal periodical payments order.
The shifts in opinion we have observed post-debate highlight the need for a nuanced approach to family law reform that aligns with contemporary societal values and the complexities of modern relationships. The audience’s votes underscore the profession’s appetite for change and adaptation, but any change needs to be well considered ensuring as much certainty and clarity for the divorcing parties as possible.”
Other propositions debated and then voted on by nearly 100 family lawyers included:[1]
- Over half (54%) did not agree that nuptial agreements should be given more weight by the Court.
- Nearly three quarters (74%) did not agree that conduct (i.e. bad behaviour) should be a factor to which the Court must have particular regard when deciding what financial orders to make.
- Just over half (51%) voted in favour of the Court being afforded less discretion when making financial orders.
- Nearly two thirds (58%) voted against reform of the legal framework in respect of non-married couples.
This debate arrives at a crucial time as the newly elected Labour Government has indicated it may consider whether to give cohabitants financial claims akin to married couples and as the Law Commission is set to produce a scoping report, addressing possible areas for reform, next month. This has led to discussions as to whether London will remain “the Divorce Capital of the World”, especially following changes to taxation introduced by the budget on 30th October 2024, and to the non-dom regime, which have resulted in a threatened exodus of wealthy individuals from the UK.
