Financial remedy proceedings have traditionally focused on the division of assets, income, and future needs following the breakdown of a marriage. However, there is growing recognition that these cases do not exist in a vacuum.
The dynamics of the relationship, particularly where there has been coercive or controlling behaviour, can have a profound impact on both the evidence available to the court and the fairness of the outcome. Coercive and controlling behaviours rarely stop on separation and often continue through the financial remedy process. For family practitioners, understanding and identifying these patterns is essential to properly advising clients, informing the strategy of the case, and ensuring that the court is presented with a complete picture.
Coercive control may operate in subtle and insidious ways and, unlike some forms of physical abuse, may leave no obvious or visible evidence. It may involve emotional manipulation, intimidation, or the restriction of autonomy. In many cases, financial control forms a central component of this behaviour.
In financial remedy cases, coercive control frequently presents itself through economic abuse. This can include:
- restricting a partner’s access to bank accounts or financial information
- exercising unilateral control over household finances
- placing debts in the other party’s name
- preventing or undermining employment or career progression
- dissipating assets
- using failures to provide full and frank disclosure, strategic delay or refusal to engage in the process as part of a wider pattern of controlling behaviour, potentially resulting in increased costs for the other party
Such behaviour can leave one party financially dependent, poorly informed, and at a significant disadvantage in proceedings.
Despite its prevalence, coercive control is often under-recognised in financial cases. The statutory framework under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 does not expressly refer to coercive control, and the bar for conduct arguments remains high: the conduct must be such that it would be inequitable to disregard it.
As a result, many instances of coercive behaviour fall short of this threshold, even where they have had a significant practical impact on the victim’s financial position.
Identifying and evidencing coercive control presents a number of challenges:
- Evidential difficulty: Coercive control rarely produces clear documentary proof. Instead, it is often inferred from patterns of behaviour over time.
- Client awareness: Many clients do not recognise their experiences as abusive, particularly where there has been no physical violence.
- Proportionality: Raising coercive control as a formal issue can increase costs and complexity and may not always be proportionate in financial proceedings. This can be particularly challenging where abusive litigation behaviour itself forms part of the pattern of control, for example where delay or non-engagement is used to deplete the victim’s financial resources. Practitioners must therefore exercise careful judgment in deciding how best to raise and frame these issues.
Adopting a trauma-informed approach can help practitioners identify and respond sensitively to coercive control and economic abuse. Early identification is important, alongside careful evidence gathering and consideration of how these issues should be raised within proceedings. Resolution’s Good Practice Guide on Domestic Abuse provides detailed guidance on trauma-informed practice and working effectively with clients who have experienced domestic abuse. This is also explored in more detail in a recent Resonate blog by Emily-Jo Moore on trauma-informed practice.
Working with domestic abuse specialists or other professionals where appropriate at an early stage can also help inform the overall strategy of a client’s case.
Practitioners should also consider how coercive or controlling behaviour might continue through the implementation of a financial agreement or order, and after. Resolution’s Financial order drafting checklist for cases involving allegations of domestic abuse and/or high conflict cases provides practical guidance to help practitioners consider how orders can be drafted to minimise opportunities for ongoing control and reduce the potential for further dispute.
As awareness of coercive and controlling behaviour continues to grow within family justice, it is increasingly important that practitioners recognise its impact in financial remedy proceedings. Although coercive control will not always meet the high threshold for a conduct argument, it can significantly affect a party’s financial position and ability to engage in the process.
A trauma-informed, proactive approach to identifying, evidencing and addressing these behaviours can help ensure that clients are properly supported and that the court has a fuller understanding of the circumstances when determining a fair outcome.
Georgina Pearson, Irwin Mitchell
Georgina is a solicitor at Irwin Mitchell and a member of the Irwin Mitchell family team Domestic Abuse Team of Excellence.
Resolution members can find more detailed guidance on trauma-informed practice in Resolution’s Good Practice Guide on Domestic Abuse, which expands on many of the practical themes discussed here, including recognising different forms of abuse, safeguarding and working collaboratively with other professionals.
Read the Good Practice Guide on Domestic Abuse
