faqs

The most important qualities are experience in complex financial cases, a clear strategy from the outset, and a lawyer who will be honest with you, even when that is not what you want to hear.

In high-value cases, you need someone who understands not just family law but the broader landscape: business valuations, trust structures, offshore assets, and how to work alongside your other advisers such as accountants, private wealth managers, and trustees. Technical knowledge matters, but so does judgment– knowing when to negotiate and when to fight.

Look for a track record in reported cases and complex litigation, and a firm small enough that you will always know who is handling your matter.

We work closely and collaboratively with your wider advisory team. In high-value cases, divorce does not happen in isolation– it intersects with tax planning, trust structures, business interests, and succession. We are used to sitting alongside private wealth lawyers, accountants, and family offices to ensure that the legal strategy and the financial strategy are aligned.

We will take the lead on the family law proceedings while making sure your other advisers are kept informed of developments that affect their work and vice versa.

A high net worth divorce typically involves significant assets: property portfolios, business interests, investments, pensions, trusts, or offshore structures. The complexity usually comes not just from the size of the assets, but from their nature.

Cases become particularly complex when assets are hard to value, when there are disputes about what should be included in the 'matrimonial pot', when one party has failed to give full financial disclosure, or when there are international elements — assets or parties in more than one jurisdiction.

Complex cases require not just legal knowledge but strategic thinking, forensic attention to financial detail, and experience in contested litigation.

The honest answer is that it depends on the complexity of the finances, the level of conflict, and how much of the process can be resolved by agreement rather than through the court.

At the straightforward end, a financial settlement might be reached through negotiation or mediation at relatively modest cost. At the other end, highly contested litigation involving multiple hearings, expert witnesses, and forensic investigation of finances can run to significant six-figure sums.

We will always give you a realistic estimate at the outset and keep you updated as the case progresses. Our aim is to resolve matters efficiently– drawn-out litigation rarely serves anyone's interests.

Most family law firms, including AFP Bloom, charge on an hourly rate basis. You will be charged for the time your lawyer and their team spend on your matter including correspondence, calls, drafting documents, court hearings, and preparation.

Some firms offer fixed fees for specific stages of a case, such as drafting a nuptial agreement or attending a single hearing. We will always be transparent about how fees work and provide you with regular cost updates so there are no surprises.

Yes. The fact that your spouse controls the finances does not mean you are without options. The court has specific powers to ensure that both parties can participate fairly in proceedings.

You may be able to apply for a Legal Services Payment Order, which requires your spouse to fund your legal costs from matrimonial assets. In some cases, litigation funding, borrowing against your anticipated settlement, is also an option. We can advise you on which route is most appropriate for your situation.

There are several ways to fund a divorce, depending on your circumstances. If you have access to your own savings or income, you can pay legal fees directly. If your spouse controls the finances, you may be able to apply to the court for a Legal Services Payment Order.

Litigation funding is another option – specialist lenders provide loans secured against your expected settlement, which are repaid when the case concludes. This can be a practical solution when assets are tied up or access to funds is restricted during proceedings.

England and Wales operates a discretionary system – there is no fixed formula. The starting point is an equal division of matrimonial assets, but the court can depart from equality where the circumstances justify it.

In higher-value cases, the key issues are often: what counts as a matrimonial asset (versus pre-marital wealth or inherited assets), how business interests are valued, the treatment of trusts and offshore structures, and the weight given to each party's contribution. The court will also consider the needs of both parties and any children.

Because the system is discretionary, strategy and presentation matter enormously. The outcome in a complex case can vary significantly depending on how it is argued.

A business interest is a matrimonial asset and will be subject to the financial remedy process. The first step is valuation, typically by a jointly instructed expert, and this is often one of the most contested aspects of a case.

The court will then consider how to deal with it. An outright sale is rarely ordered, particularly for an ongoing business. More commonly, one party retains the business and the other receives an equivalent share of other assets. Where there are insufficient liquid assets to offset, a deferred settlement or structured payment arrangement may be agreed.

The treatment of minority interests, partnerships, and professionally regulated businesses (such as law or medical practices) involves specific considerations. We have extensive experience advising on business assets in divorce.

This is one of the most technically complex areas of financial remedy law. The court will look carefully at the reality of any trust or offshore structure, not just its legal form. If a party has effective control over trust assets, or benefits from them in a meaningful way, the court may treat them as available resources even if they are not legally owned outright.

The court has wide powers to investigate these structures and to require full disclosure of their terms and assets. Attempts to shelter assets behind trusts or corporate vehicles are increasingly scrutinised, and the consequences of non-disclosure are serious.

We work regularly with cases involving complex international wealth structures and understand how to navigate them effectively – both in terms of disclosure and in arguing how they should be treated.

Full and frank financial disclosure is a legal obligation in divorce proceedings. If your spouse fails to disclose assets, or you have reason to believe they are not being honest, there are several tools available to address this.

The court can order disclosure of specific documents, direct third parties (such as banks or companies) to produce records, and draw adverse inferences where disclosure is incomplete. In serious cases, a freezing injunction can be obtained to prevent assets being moved or dissipated. Non-disclosure carries significant consequences, including costs penalties and, in extreme cases, committal proceedings.

Early legal advice is important if you suspect non-disclosure. The sooner steps are taken to secure information, the better.

A freezing injunction is a court order that prevents a party from disposing of, moving, or dissipating assets – typically to stop them being placed beyond reach before a financial settlement is reached.

You might need one if there is a real risk that your spouse will sell assets, transfer money offshore, or otherwise reduce the matrimonial pot before the case is resolved. Applications can be made urgently and without notice to the other party in serious cases.

Freezing orders are powerful but not granted lightly, you need to demonstrate a real risk of dissipation and a good arguable case on the underlying claim. We have experience in both obtaining and defending freezing injunctions.

Whether your spouse is an individual concealing personal assets or a business owner with opaque company finances, the approach is the same: the court expects full and frank disclosure and has robust tools to enforce it.

Business owners sometimes seek to understate the value of their company, manipulate accounts, or retain income within the business to reduce the apparent matrimonial pot. Forensic accountants can be instructed to investigate, and the court can draw adverse inferences where the financial picture does not add up.

‍Note: this answer consolidates two related questions on financial transparency.

Complexity in a divorce case usually comes from one or more of the following: significant or varied assets (businesses, trusts, property portfolios, pensions); an international element (assets or parties in more than one country); disputes about financial disclosure; a high-conflict dynamic between the parties; or children arrangements that are genuinely contested.

Complexity is not purely about money. A case involving modest assets but a highly uncooperative spouse, or a relocation dispute, can be just as technically and strategically demanding as a multi-million pound financial case.

What complex cases have in common is that they require specialist expertise, careful strategy, and experienced lawyers who have handled similar situations before.

A high-conflict divorce is one where the parties are unable to reach agreements, communication has broken down entirely, and one or both parties approach proceedings as a battle rather than a process to be resolved.

High-conflict cases are often, though not always, characterised by one party who escalates disputes, refuses to engage constructively, uses litigation as a means of control, or makes proceedings unnecessarily difficult. They tend to take longer, cost more, and place greater strain on everyone involved, including children.

Managing a high-conflict case well requires a different approach from a cooperative one. It demands clear boundaries, firm case management, and a lawyer who can remain strategic and focused rather than drawn into the conflict.

This is one of the most important and time-sensitive questions in an international divorce. Different countries have very different approaches to dividing assets, and the outcome can vary dramatically depending on where proceedings are issued.

England and Wales is often considered one of the most favourable jurisdictions for the financially weaker party, with its discretionary approach and willingness to consider all assets regardless of where they are held. Other jurisdictions take a more rigid, formulaic approach.

Jurisdiction is determined by a combination of factors including habitual residence, domicile, and in some cases nationality. In international cases there is often a race to issue proceedings first, which is why early legal advice is critical. We regularly advise clients on jurisdiction strategy and have particular expertise in cases with English and French elements.

You cannot take your children to live permanently abroad without either the consent of everyone with parental responsibility or a court order permitting the move. Doing so without permission can constitute child abduction, which carries serious legal consequences.

If you want to relocate, you will need to apply to the court if your co-parent does not agree. The court will consider the genuine motivation for the move, the impact on the children's relationship with the other parent, and whether a realistic and workable contact arrangement can be maintained.

If you are concerned that your co-parent may attempt to remove your children without consent, you can apply for a Prohibited Steps Order to prevent this. In urgent cases, this can be obtained very quickly.

Anglo-French divorces involve specific complexities, especially because France and England take very different approaches to dividing matrimonial assets. France operates a community of property regime by default (unless you have a marriage contract), while England applies a discretionary fairness test.

Jurisdiction is a critical issue. Proceedings issued in France may produce a very different outcome from proceedings in England, and once one country has jurisdiction it can be difficult to move the case. If both countries are a realistic option, advice on where and when to issue, is essential.

AFP Bloom has a dedicated Anglo-French team. Several of our lawyers are dual nationals or bilingual, and we work regularly with French law firms on cross-border cases. It is one of our core specialisms.

The divorce itself – ending the legal marriage – is now relatively straightforward under no-fault divorce rules. Most people receive their final divorce order within six to twelve months of applying.

The financial settlement is a separate process and takes much longer. An agreed settlement can sometimes be reached and approved by the court within six to twelve months. A contested case going to a final hearing will typically take between one and two years, sometimes longer in complex matters.

The main stages of a financial case are: Form E financial disclosure; the First Appointment (to define the issues); the Financial Dispute Resolution hearing (a structured negotiation before a judge); and, if unresolved, a Final Hearing. Many cases settle at or before the FDR stage.

Most divorce and financial remedy cases are heard in the Family Court. Cases are transferred to the High Court when they involve particularly substantial assets, significant legal complexity, or novel points of law.

High Court judges deal with the most complex financial remedy cases – typically those involving very large asset bases, international elements, or cases where there are serious allegations such as fraud or non-disclosure at a high level. Reported cases, those that become legal precedents, are almost always decided in the High Court.

AFP Bloom acts in High Court proceedings regularly, including in reported cases that have shaped the development of family law.

A reported case is one where the judgment is published and forms part of the body of case law. Judges refer to reported cases when deciding future disputes, setting precedents and clarifying how the law applies in particular situations.

When a firm has acted in reported cases, it means their lawyers have handled matters at the cutting edge of the law: often novel, high-stakes, or legally complex situations. It is a meaningful indicator of experience and expertise at the highest level.

AFP Bloom has acted in a number of reported cases, including cases that have directly shaped how the courts approach financial remedy applications following foreign divorces.

Family courts do not diagnose personalities or make findings about whether someone is a 'difficult' person. What the court focuses on is behaviour, specifically, how conduct affects the progress and fairness of the case.

Judges are experienced in dealing with parties who escalate conflict, refuse to cooperate, or use proceedings as a means of control. The court can make case management directions to keep things on track, impose cost penalties for unreasonable behaviour, and in children cases, involve independent professionals or expert assessors.

The key takeaway is that the process is designed to focus on evidence and outcomes. Where one party's conduct is making a case unnecessarily difficult, experienced lawyers focus on managing the litigation strategically, rather than simply complaining about the behaviour.

Entering a divorce process with someone who you believe will make things difficult is daunting – but what really matters is how those traits play out in the proceedings, and how well you manage them.

Some individuals escalate conflict, resist disclosure, or approach proceedings as a battle to be won rather than a process to be resolved. This increases costs and delays resolution if it is not handled carefully. The most effective approach is usually to remain focused on the legal issues and the evidence, look forward rather than relitigate the past, and avoid being drawn into conflict for its own sake.

You need clear strategy, careful management of disclosure, and firm case progression. Experienced family lawyers are used to these dynamics and will keep two options open at all times, a cooperative route and a firm litigated one, adjusting the approach as the case develops.

Tactical delay, whether through changing lawyers, failing to meet deadlines, or refusing to engage, is a recognised problem in high-conflict cases. It is frustrating, but the court has tools to address it.

The court can impose strict timetables, make unless orders (which carry automatic sanctions if not complied with), and award costs against a party whose conduct has caused unnecessary delay or expense. If your spouse keeps changing lawyers, the court will not allow that to derail the timetable indefinitely.

The best response is to remain focused, comply with all your own obligations, and let the court see clearly who is and is not cooperating.

Using litigation as a means of harassment, control, or financial attrition is sadly not uncommon in high-conflict cases. It can take the form of making excessive applications, pursuing unmeritorious claims, failing to comply with orders, or simply making proceedings as expensive and stressful as possible.

The court takes a dim view of this behaviour. Cost orders can be made against a party who acts unreasonably, and in serious cases the court can restrict the number of applications a party can make without permission. It is essential to document the pattern of behaviour carefully and instruct lawyers who know how to present it effectively.

The single most important thing is to recognise the dynamic early and plan accordingly, rather than reacting to each provocation as it arises. High-conflict cases are won by those who stay focused on the legal issues, not those who get drawn into the conflict.

Practically, this means: securing financial disclosure early and thoroughly; keeping communication formal and documented; not rising to provocation; being realistic about what litigation will cost and what it will achieve; and instructing lawyers who have experience of these dynamics and know how to manage them strategically.

It also means being honest with yourself about what outcome you are trying to achieve and what price, financially and emotionally, you are prepared to pay to get there.

This is one of the most challenging combinations in family law – and one we see regularly. Complex finances require careful, methodical work: thorough disclosure, expert evidence, and a clear forensic understanding of the asset base. A high-conflict personality introduces a layer of unpredictability and tactical behaviour that can derail that process if not carefully managed.

The key is not to let the conflict drive the strategy. Cases with difficult personalities and complex finances require a particularly clear head – knowing which battles to fight, which to ignore, and how to keep the case moving towards resolution without being distracted by noise.

This is exactly the kind of case AFP Bloom is built for.

The court's sole focus is the welfare of the child: this is the paramount consideration in every decision. There is no presumption in favour of either parent, and no automatic right to equal time.

The court will consider a wide range of factors, including: the child's own wishes (depending on age and maturity), each parent's ability to meet the child's needs, the importance of maintaining relationships with both parents, any history of domestic abuse or safeguarding concerns, and the practical arrangements each parent can offer.

Most cases are resolved without a final contested hearing. Where parents cannot agree, the court will make a Child Arrangements Order setting out where the child lives and when they spend time with each parent.

A Child Arrangements Order is a court order that sets out who a child lives with, and when and how they spend time with each parent or other significant people in their life.

It replaced the old 'residence' and 'contact' orders and is now the standard way of formalising arrangements when parents cannot agree. While the court encourages parents to reach their own agreements wherever possible, a formal order provides certainty and is enforceable if one party does not comply.

If you have a Child Arrangements Order stating that your child lives with you, the other parent cannot take them outside England and Wales for more than 28 days without your consent or a court order. Without a formal order, the position is less clear. But taking a child abroad without consent can still constitute child abduction if it is against the wishes of someone with parental responsibility.

If you are concerned about an unauthorised trip, you can apply for a Prohibited Steps Order to prevent it. In urgent cases, this can be obtained very quickly, sometimes within hours.

Internal relocation, moving within England and Wales or to Scotland or Northern Ireland, does not require a court order in the same way as international relocation. However, if the move would significantly affect the other parent's ability to spend time with the children, and the parents cannot agree, the court can be asked to decide.

The court will apply the same welfare test as in any children dispute, focusing on what is in the best interests of the child, taking into account the impact of the move on both parental relationships and the child's broader life.

Jurisdiction in international children cases is determined primarily by the child's habitual residence, broadly, where they have their settled home and centre of life. If a child habitually resides in England, the English courts will usually have jurisdiction; if in France, the French courts.

Where the position is unclear, perhaps because the family has recently moved or splits time between countries, jurisdiction can be genuinely contested, and the answer can have significant consequences for the outcome. French and English courts approach children disputes differently, and the approach to relocation applications in particular varies.

AFP Bloom has dedicated Anglo-French expertise and works regularly with French lawyers on cross-border children cases. Early advice is essential.

The decisions made in the first weeks of a case can shape everything that follows, including which country has jurisdiction, what assets are available, and how the other party positions themselves. Acting early allows you to protect your position before problems arise rather than trying to fix them later.

Early strategy also means understanding what you actually want to achieve and what route is most likely to get you there. Not every case needs to be litigated; not every case can be resolved without it. Knowing the difference, and planning accordingly, is what separates good legal advice from simply reacting to events.

The most common mistakes we see are: acting on emotion rather than strategy in the early stages; failing to take legal advice before making significant financial moves; assuming the process will be straightforward when it will not; and underestimating the importance of jurisdiction in international cases.

Another frequent mistake is trying to save costs by delaying instruction of a specialist lawyer, only to find that earlier decisions have made the case harder and more expensive to resolve. In complex cases particularly, specialist advice at the outset almost always saves money in the long run.

The first step is to gather as much financial information as you can: bank statements, company accounts, trust documents, property valuations. Even if you do not have access to everything, building a picture of what exists is an important starting point.

In complex cases, it is also important to identify early which assets are likely to be disputed – whether in terms of their existence, their value, or whether they should be included in the settlement. This shapes the disclosure process and the expert evidence that will be needed.

Do not assume that complexity means everything is uncertain. With the right team – lawyers, forensic accountants, and other specialists working together – even the most complicated financial picture can be analysed and presented clearly.

In most cases, negotiating a settlement is preferable to going to court – it is faster, cheaper, less stressful, and gives both parties more control over the outcome. The court process can be unpredictable, and a judge making a final decision will not know your case as well as you and your lawyers do.

That said, negotiation only works when both parties engage in good faith and with full financial transparency. If your spouse is hiding assets, being unreasonable, or using the process tactically, litigation may be necessary to force disclosure and to achieve a fair result.

The best approach is usually to keep both options open. Preparing thoroughly for court while genuinely pursuing settlement puts you in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table and in front of a judge.

Non-court dispute resolution (NCDR) is an umbrella term for any process that helps separating couples resolve their disputes without going through the full court litigation process. It includes mediation, collaborative law, arbitration, early neutral evaluation, and private Financial Dispute Resolution hearings (private FDRs).

Since April 2024, parties in family proceedings are required to consider NCDR before issuing court applications in most cases. The court can adjourn proceedings to allow NCDR to take place and can take into account a party's unreasonable refusal to engage when making costs orders.

Not exactly, but you are now required to consider non-court dispute resolution before making most court applications. In practice, this means attending a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM) – a session where a mediator explains the options – unless an exemption applies.

Exemptions include cases involving domestic abuse, urgency, or situations where the other party is abroad. The requirement is to consider NCDR, not necessarily to participate in it – if it is not appropriate for your case, you can still proceed to court.

Out-of-court resolution tends to work best when both parties are willing to engage honestly, there is reasonable financial transparency, and the goal is to reach a fair outcome efficiently. It is particularly well-suited to cases where the parties want to preserve a co-parenting relationship, or where privacy is a concern.

It is less suitable where there is a significant power imbalance, a history of coercive control, or where one party is not being transparent about their finances.

Yes – and in some ways, NCDR can be even more valuable in complex or high-conflict cases, because the alternatives (protracted court litigation) are so costly and damaging.

Private FDRs, in particular, are well-suited to complex financial cases. You can choose a judge or expert with specific expertise in the relevant area – business valuations, trusts, international assets – and the process can be tailored to the complexity of the case. In high-conflict cases, having a skilled neutral professional facilitate negotiations can sometimes break deadlocks that the parties themselves cannot.

The key is choosing the right process for the specific dynamics of your case, and ensuring it is conducted with proper legal support.

These are three distinct processes with different characteristics.

Mediation involves a neutral third party helping both sides reach an agreement. The mediator does not make decisions, they merely facilitate discussion. Any agreement reached still needs to be turned into a court order to be legally binding.

Arbitration is more like a private court hearing. An arbitrator (usually a specialist lawyer or retired judge) hears both sides and makes a binding decision. It is faster and more private than court, and the parties have more control over the process and timing.

A private FDR mirrors the Financial Dispute Resolution hearing in the court process, but takes place privately. A neutral evaluator, often a senior barrister or retired judge, gives an indication of what a court might decide, which often helps parties reach a settlement. Unlike arbitration, it is not binding, but the indication carries significant weight.

‍In complex financial cases, arbitration and private FDRs are increasingly popular because they offer the expertise and structure of the court process with greater speed, flexibility, and confidentiality.

Family court proceedings are generally held in private, unlike most civil court hearings, the public cannot attend. However, 'private' does not mean entirely confidential.

Accredited journalists are permitted to attend most family court hearings, though there are restrictions on what they can report. Judgments in significant cases are increasingly published, sometimes with names anonymised and sometimes not. Parties and their lawyers are subject to strict rules about what they can disclose from proceedings.

Yes. Since 2009, accredited media representatives have been permitted to attend most family court hearings. However, they are subject to reporting restrictions: they cannot publish information that would identify the children involved, and the court can exclude them in certain circumstances.

In practice, routine hearings attract little media attention. It is the high-profile or legally significant cases,  those involving public figures or large sums, that are more likely to be reported.

It depends. In most family cases, the details are not reported and names do not appear in the press. However, in high-value cases involving well-known individuals or legally significant issues, judgments can be published and may attract media coverage.

The court has the power to anonymise judgments, but this is not automatic. If privacy is a significant concern, it is important to raise this early and to take steps to minimise the risk of public exposure, including, where possible, resolving the case without a final contested hearing.

Complete secrecy cannot be guaranteed, but there are meaningful steps that can be taken to protect privacy. Resolving a case by agreement rather than through a contested final hearing significantly reduces the risk of a published judgment.

Where a case does go to a final hearing, an application can be made for reporting restrictions or for the judgment to be anonymised. The court will weigh the importance of open justice against the privacy interests involved, including those of any children.

For clients where privacy is paramount – public figures, business leaders, or those in sensitive positions – we give careful thought to strategy from the outset, with the goal of achieving the best possible outcome with the minimum possible public exposure.

A prenuptial agreement is a contract entered into before marriage that sets out how assets would be divided if the marriage were to break down. It can cover pre-marital wealth, inherited assets, business interests, property, and future income.

Prenuptial agreements are not automatically legally binding in England and Wales unlike in many other countries. However, following the Supreme Court decision in Radmacher v Granatino (2010), the courts will give significant weight to a prenuptial agreement if it was freely entered into by both parties with a full understanding of its implications, and if it is fair to hold both parties to it at the time of divorce.

In practice, a well-drafted prenuptial agreement, prepared with independent legal advice for both parties and signed well before the wedding, is a powerful tool for protecting wealth and providing certainty. We strongly recommend them for clients with significant assets, business interests, or prior family wealth.

A postnuptial agreement is essentially the same as a prenuptial agreement but entered into after the marriage has taken place. They are used where a prenuptial agreement was not put in place before the wedding, or where circumstances have changed significantly during the marriage, following an inheritance, the sale of a business, a period of relationship difficulty, etc.

The same legal principles apply as to prenuptial agreements, they are not automatically binding, but a well-prepared postnuptial agreement carries significant weight with the courts.

Spousal maintenance (also called periodical payments) is a regular payment made by one former spouse to the other following divorce. It is intended to meet the needs of a spouse who cannot meet their own reasonable needs from their own resources, whether due to childcare responsibilities, a career break, or a significant disparity in earning capacity.

There is no fixed formula for calculating spousal maintenance. The court considers the paying party's ability to pay, the receiving party's needs, and increasingly, the importance of each party becoming financially independent over time. Maintenance can be time-limited (a 'joint lives' order is now less common) or can step down over a period as the recipient builds financial independence.

In high-value cases, spousal maintenance can be capitalised – paid as a lump sum rather than ongoing payments – which provides certainty for both parties.

Non-matrimonial assets are assets that were not generated by the marriage, but rather typically by pre-marital wealth, inheritances, or gifts from third parties. In principle, these assets are treated differently from matrimonial assets and may be ring-fenced from division.

However, this is not absolute. If the matrimonial assets are insufficient to meet both parties' needs, the court may look to non-matrimonial assets to make up the shortfall. The longer the marriage, and the more intermingled the assets, the harder it becomes to maintain a clear distinction.

A prenuptial or postnuptial agreement is the most effective way of protecting non-matrimonial assets as it sets out clearly what should be treated as separate property and provides a framework the court is likely to respect.

A financial remedy order is the court order that formally resolves the financial aspects of a divorce. It sets out exactly what each party will receive, whether that is a lump sum, a share of property, pension sharing, spousal maintenance, or a combination.

A financial remedy order is binding and enforceable. Even where parties reach a financial agreement between themselves, it must be approved by the court in the form of a consent order to be legally binding. Without a court order, either party could return to court in the future to make further financial claims.

Yes. Since April 2022, England and Wales has operated a no-fault divorce system. You no longer need your spouse's consent to divorce, and you do not need to prove any grounds such as adultery or unreasonable behaviour.

Either party, or both jointly, can apply for a divorce simply by stating that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. The other party cannot contest the divorce itself (though they can raise procedural objections in limited circumstances). The process takes a minimum of around six months from application to final order.

The financial settlement and any arrangements for children are dealt with separately from the divorce itself.