The Year at a Glance

The last 12 months have been a dynamic time of change in English family law, with the general direction of travel moving towards parties having increased autonomy to resolve disputes outside the court process. The family justice system has continued its post-pandemic transition towards a system that is more open and digitally competent, while the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court have refined core doctrines – most notably, the boundaries of the sharing principle in financial remedies. These changes sit alongside national transparency reforms and targeted amendments to the Family Procedure Rules (FPR) and Practice Directions that will shape everyday case preparation and advocacy in 2026.

Transparency: From Pilot to Implementation

The transparency story has been a key structural change this year. Following successful pilots put into train following Sir Andrew McFarlane’s 2021 report entitled ‘Confidence and Confidentiality: Transparency in the Family Courts’, the reporting provisions applied nationally from 27 January 2025. This introduced a presumption that a transparency order will permit accredited journalists and legal bloggers to report what they see and hear, subject to strict anonymity.

His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has published guidance for families explaining who may attend, what documents can be seen, and what can be reported. Practitioners in the South West and throughout England and Wales must now assume that position statements may be read by the press and draft accordingly.

Non-Court Dispute Resolution (NCDR): Encouraged and Normalised

The cultural shift towards early resolution continued, and exploring options outside the court process has continued to gather momentum. Building on 2024 changes to the FPR (stronger MIAM duty, adjourn to NCDR powers, and costs exposure for unreasonable refusal), 2025 saw judges more willing to pause to explore mediation, arbitration or private financial dispute resolution (FDR), supported by public-facing information initiatives. For clients and those representing them, frustration with court delays and the added pressure of the transparency changes added a further incentive to avoid contested litigation. A communication sent to key stakeholders in London (including Resolution, the Family Law Bar Association and the London Financial Remedies Court User Group) indicated that the Financial Remedies Court would have to cancel a large number of sitting days between October and March, further pushing parties away from court towards the full range of NCDR options.

In Bristol, we are fortunate to have a court centre that is well managed and we benefit from a dedicated and expert group of full-time judges and deputy district judges. This means that listing delays are far less severe than in London and the quality of tribunal remains high. For those reasons, there are fewer push factors driving parties towards private FDR or other NCDR options, although local judges are supportive of parties who do wish to engage in NCDR and are keen to lessen the burden on court listing where appropriate to do so.

Prior to the pandemic, private FDR was commonplace for larger or more complex cases, but post-pandemic it is now very much the norm for anyone practising in Greater London. While the South West may have been slower to adopt this process, it is gaining in popularity in larger urban centres such as Bristol, Exeter and Truro, with the local sets offering private FDR judges at most levels of call, as well as London counsel often being willing to travel to sit as tribunal as well.

The Rise of the “One Couple, One Lawyer” Model

Alongside the broader adoption of conventional NCDR options, 2025 saw an acceleration in the number of firms offering a “one couple, one lawyer” service. In particular, this has been driven by the tireless efforts of Resolution, which developed its “Resolution Together” product, with over 360 lawyers being trained in the course’s first year. This has been adopted by large numbers of practitioners across the South West.

While this model was once unthinkable due to conflict of interest concerns, it has gained momentum following the widespread adoption of joint divorce applications under the no-fault divorce regime and given the rising demand for co-operative, cost-effective alternatives to adversarial separation. While private FDR has been adopted more slowly in the regions, the uptake of “one couple, one lawyer” services has been significant throughout England and Wales.

The model received its first major academic evaluation in 2025 by Dr Rachael Blakey of the University of Warwick. This examined the work of 24 practitioners and found:

• high settlement rates (in some practices approaching 100%);
• strong client satisfaction;
• a reduction in hostility; and
• successful outcomes where lawyers carried out rigorous screening, individual intake interviews and strict ethical boundary setting.

Bristol Family Solutions

The evolution of family law practice in England and Wales increasingly emphasises non-adversarial pathways, and the work of Bristol Family Law Solutions illustrates how these national shifts appear at a local level. The group is a multidisciplinary collective of six types of professionals who work together to help separating couples resolve issues outside the court system. It brings together solicitors, mediators, financial neutrals, pension specialists, therapists and divorce coaches, providing families with integrated legal, emotional and financial support at every stage of separation. Their services include the Resolution Together joint advice model, collaborative law processes, mediation, counselling, coaching and impartial financial guidance, all designed to reduce conflict and empower families to make well-informed decisions without entering adversarial proceedings. Its formal launch on Wednesday 28 January 2026 was well attended, and the speech delivered by the Designated Family Judge for Bristol, HHJ Cope, was a clear sign that the group has support at the highest level.

The existence of a team comprising six distinct professional disciplines reflects the wider culture of the family law community in Bristol, which has shown a strong commitment to innovation and to embracing non-court problem-solving approaches. By embedding therapeutic, legal and financial expertise within one co-operative structure, Bristol practitioners demonstrate an orientation towards holistic, child-centred and minimally adversarial methods of practice. This shift mirrors national reform movements encouraging early intervention and interdisciplinary collaboration, suggesting that Bristol’s family law community not only supports these developments but actively models them in practice.

Nuptial Agreements: Finally Time for Reform?

Nuptial agreements have moved back to centre stage, and although the Radmacher v Granatino guidance still governs judicial weight, developments in policy and case law over the last year point towards clearer rules and stronger safeguards.

In December 2025, the government confirmed that there is to be a wide-ranging consultation on cohabitation reform and financial remedies which explicitly includes nuptial agreements within its scope. The consultation will come back to the Law Commission’s 2014 recommendations and will explore minimum safeguards (advice, disclosure, absence of duress) alongside a consistent approach across marriage, civil partnership and cohabitation. For internationally mobile parties, it is likely to address how English law should treat foreign nuptial agreements and interpret civil law marital property regimes.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Helliwell v Entwistle [2025] EWCA Civ 1055 looked again at two Radmacher tests: (i) the extent of disclosure needed for an agreement to carry weight, and (ii) the application of ordinary contractual vitiating factors. The Court confirmed that Radmacher does not require comprehensive disclosure at the level needed within proceedings and the test remains whether each party had information material to the decision to sign an agreement. The judgment offers practitioners practical guidance on proportionate disclosure and reinforces the importance of process (timing, advice, absence of pressure) to the weight an agreement will ultimately attract.

Recent commentary in the Financial Remedies Journal has captured the growing comparative and cross-border pressures. The English courts are increasingly asked to respect autonomy where couples have elected foreign matrimonial property regimes or have executed foreign (often civil law) marriage contracts. Many practitioners have argued that this strengthens the case for a statutory “qualifying nuptial agreement” model that provides predictability, while still preserving a needs floor and protections against unfairness. Many French-headquartered businesses have a significant presence in the South West (particularly in the aerospace and defence sectors), meaning that family lawyers in our region are frequently asked to advise on the impact of civil law marriage contracts on outcomes in proceedings here.

The 2026 consultation is likely to propose: (i) a statutory definition of qualifying nuptial agreements; (ii) minimum advice/disclosure/timing criteria; (iii) a clear non-derogation from the needs principle; and (iv) rules governing the recognition of foreign agreements. Prior to the government legislating, practitioners should tighten process around disclosure and continue to draft agreements with an eye on the likely future statutory criteria.

Key Cases That May Have Moved the Dial?

We have already dealt with Helliwell v Entwistle [2025] EWCA Civ 1055 above. The Supreme Court delivered last year’s most consequential financial remedies decision in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26. This confirmed that the sharing principle attaches to matrimonial property, not non-matrimonial, while recognising that non-matrimonial assets may be “matrimonialised” where, over time, the parties treat them as shared. Equal sharing of matrimonial assets remains the principled starting point, subject to needs and, where engaged, compensation. The inquiry into matrimonialisation is holistic; “mingling” is relevant but not determinative, and contrary to the Court of Appeal judgment, matrimonialisation should be regarded as neither “narrow nor wide”.

The facts?

The husband transferred c. £78–£80 million of pre-acquired wealth into the wife’s sole name during the marriage as part of an estate/tax planning exercise. At first instance, the assets were treated as matrimonial and divided 60:40. The Court of Appeal then sharply reduced the award, emphasising the non-matrimonial provenance before the Supreme Court upheld that stricter approach.

Practical effect?

In big money cases, it may now be easier to ring-fence non-matrimonial wealth, and sharing claims must now clear a higher bar where the assets for division comfortably exceed needs. We are likely to see a more forensic analysis of source of funds, and tracing exercises may become more common. In the absence of contemporaneous documentary evidence (which may not always be available), there will be more focus on parties’ historic intentions regarding the treatment of assets. This may cause additional disputes and require judges to make determinations of fact, with reference only to very different recollections by parties of what had or had not been agreed.

• Estate planning: Inter-spousal transfers for tax/structuring will not automatically “matrimonialise” the assets. Family and private client teams should co-ordinate contemporaneous records of intention (eg, letters of wishes) to resist future sharing claims, and the use of nuptial agreements should be considered prior to any significant transfers of wealth.
• Mid-range cases: Needs will still dominate. Even where assets are non-matrimonial, courts may deploy them to meet reasonable needs; pleas for sharing should be carefully distinguished from needs arguments.

The judgment in MRU v ECR [2025] EWFC 218 (B) reinforced the exceptional threshold for running a successful conduct argument.

Resolution had published a report entitled ‘Domestic Abuse in Financial Remedy Proceedings’ in late 2024 which included recommendations as to how the Family Court can better recognise, evaluate and protect victims of domestic abuse. It emphasised that abusers frequently use financial manipulation – such as withholding funds, hiding assets, delaying proceedings, breaching court orders or intimidating the other party – as part of patterns of coercive control. Courts, it said, must treat these behaviours more seriously when assessing fairness and needs. This has increased calls for reform of a system in which all too often those representing victims of abuse have to encourage their clients to ignore abuse and focus on needs arguments.

In MRU v ECR [2025] EWFC 218 (B), Deputy District Judge Rose decided that the wife’s conduct satisfied the “gross and obvious” test and that it would be “inequitable to disregard” that conduct.

The facts?

It had been a long marriage of around 20 years with three young children. The wife had been convicted of sustained domestic abuse, including violence, threats and coercive control, and had served a significant custodial sentence. The husband was the primary carer for the children following child arrangements proceedings which had concluded with the wife being permitted only indirect supervised contact. The asset base was limited, with little beyond the net proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home and modest pensions on each side. There were also significant debts on both sides.

Decision and practical effect?

The husband was awarded 100% of the remaining net sale proceeds of the former matrimonial home to enable him to rehouse with the children.

While this decision does not lower the threshold for conduct to be considered, it does show that in exceptional circumstances judges will adjust the division of capital where there is a measurable financial impact of the abuse. This should encourage practitioners to consider carefully pleaded conduct cases where there is both serious wrongdoing and a real financial impact flowing from that conduct. However, the recent case of LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473 highlights judicial concern about viewing abusive behaviour through the framework of financial impact, where Cusworth J held, “I consider that there is a real risk of unfairness to victims of violent or coercive controlling behaviour, if the lack of readily quantifiable financial loss prevents the courts from even considering the fairness of taking their assailant’s behaviour into account in determining the outcome of a financial remedy application.”

How About Developments Relating to Children?

NCDR

NCDR changes are impacting private children law applications too, with changes to the FPR directly impacting the way in which parents should be thinking about litigation. In AM v RF [2024] EWFC, a mother was ordered to pay the father’s costs for failing to meaningfully engage in mediation regarding child arrangements, which should be warning to prospective litigants.

Practitioners should be advising clients to keep NCDR options under review for the lifetime of their case and to properly engage. The NCDR changes also seem to have breathed new life into the children arbitration scheme, which has to date lagged behind financial arbitration. While there are still practical issues to overcome in children cases, where litigants and practitioners have often been concerned about using arbitration in cases where there are allegations of domestic abuse, there has seemingly been an uptick in use. Most arbitrators now advise that it is possible to arbitrate these types of cases and that this route can in fact be more empowering and safer for litigants than proceedings taking place within the overstretched court system. It is often still a challenge to get buy-in from both parties, particularly in cases where maintaining the status quo through delay might assist one party’s case. However, there is definitely a move by the judiciary to question that position come a final hearing, if arbitration has been consistently suggested and refused throughout the litigation. It is generally seen to be in a child’s best interests for decisions to be made promptly if safe and possible to do so, and refusing arbitration solely as a litigation tactic is likely to receive short shrift.

Children applications are also affected by the transparency changes discussed above, and practitioners need to be alive to the changes and the implications for their cases.

Repeal of presumption of parental involvement

In October 2025, the government announced that it intended to repeal the presumption of parental involvement in a child’s life that had been introduced into the Children Act in 2014. The government recognised that the introduction of this presumption, although rebuttable, has been criticised for “appearing to reinforce a pro-contact culture”. It has announced that this will take place as part of wider reforms, but no detail has been given and no timeline has been announced. From a practitioner’s perspective, it is largely business as usual for now, but this is something to keep on the radar throughout 2026. If it does happen, it will be interesting to see whether it changes anything on the ground and, if so, how quickly those changes will be felt.

HMCTS portal expanded

On a practical level, 2026 will see the rollout of the court portal for private law children applications. Courts in the South West are not part of the early adopter courts, but it is thought that the rollout will gather pace towards the end of the year. The Pathfinder programme has also been gathering momentum and has launched in a number of courts over the past three years including Dorset, Wales and Birmingham. Pathfinder introduces a very different process to the Child Arrangements Programme that practitioners are used to, front-ending the information gathering and assessments, and it is important to check what model the parties’ local court is using so you can properly advise clients.

Modern families

In the surrogacy and modern families space, there have been some difficult moments in 2025, with the government announcing in April that it was not going to proceed immediately with the reforms to the parental order process proposed by the Law Commission and a report from the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls concluding that surrogacy in all forms should be banned worldwide. The current law in England is progressive when compared to other jurisdictions but it has not kept pace with changes in family structures and many argue it is no longer fit for purpose. There does not seem to be much political appetite to review the legislation, and against the wider, international political backdrop, reform is less likely to be at the forefront of this government’s agenda as we progress through 2026.

Conclusion

The last 12 months have embedded a new way of operating for family justice with transparency as default (subject to safeguards), with safety as an organising principle, NCDR as an expectation, and clearer boundaries in financial remedies following Standish. If one adds to that a renewed policy focus on nuptial agreements and a likely 2026 consultation, the direction is clear: a system aiming for clarity, consistency and early, safe resolution. The profession’s task for 2026 is to adapt to these shifts by preparing cases as if they may be reported, to consider carefully how to help those who may be victims of abuse and, where possible, to explore the range of NCDR options available to resolve cases cost-effectively and in a timely manner.

The South West is especially well placed to meet these challenges. Its family law community is rich in multidisciplinary expertise and progressive practice models. There is also a strong culture of co-operation between lawyers, mediators, therapists, financial specialists and the courts. Together, these professionals are not only adapting to change but helping to shape it.