High Court Decision Underlines the Finality of Divorce Arbitration Awards

12th April 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

Divorcing couples can sometimes achieve savings of both time and money by opting for arbitration, rather than court proceedings, as a means of resolving any financial disputes. However, as a guideline High Court case underlined, arbitration has its potential downsides and it is vital to remember that arbitrators’ decisions are generally treated as final.

Faced with the prospect of having to wait several months for a court date following the breakdown of their ten-year marriage, a middle-aged couple chose to submit their differences to an arbitrator. He decided that the net capital assets of the marriage should be divided 60 per cent to 40 per cent in the husband’s favour.

Such division was to be achieved by the sale of the family home and was designed to enable each of them to purchase a new property. The wife was awarded 76 per cent of the husband’s pension and he was required to pay her maintenance at steadily reducing rates up to the date of his retirement. The wife was, however, dissatisfied with the arbitrator’s award, arguing that it was untenable.

She claimed, amongst other things, that the arbitrator had failed to take into account her inability to take on a mortgage and the husband’s excessive spending following the end of the marriage. In those circumstances, she argued that the award should not, as is usual, be recognised in the form of a court order.

In ruling on the matter, the High Court noted that arbitration awards are binding in their own right, although they are generally confirmed by court order so that they can be enforced against third parties. However, an arbitration agreement, or an award, does not oust the Court’s jurisdiction under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to investigate the circumstances and make an order in different terms.

The effectiveness of the arbitration scheme, however, depends on awards being generally treated as effective and binding. In pursuit of a swift resolution of the dispute, both husband and wife had freely entered into the arbitration process with the benefit of legal advice. Both had also signed a form by which they signalled their understanding that the arbitrator’s award would in principle be final.

In dismissing the wife’s arguments, the Court found that she had failed to establish any fundamental change in circumstances, or mistake on the arbitrator’s part, sufficient to undermine his clearly reasoned and balanced award. In the circumstances, the Court made an order in the terms of the award.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Motor Insurers Not Liable for £2 Million Fire Damage

27th June, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

The law requires that the driver of any vehicle has a valid insurance policy that covers injury or damage to third parties caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle on a road or in a public place. The Supreme Court has given authoritative guidance on the meaning of that phrase in a case of crucial importance to vehicle owners and the insurance industry. The case concerned an employee of an engineering firm, the owners of which allowed him to use the premises to do work on...

Ignore Court Orders At Your Peril

24th June, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

A wealthy Omani man who failed to pay to his ex-wife the financial settlement ordered by the court, or to cooperate with disclosure orders, faces arrest if he attempts to return to the UK. When the couple's marriage broke up, they were divorced under Omani law. However, the wife, a resident of the UK, sought and obtained orders in the UK court for financial relief (under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984) for herself and their children, who live with her. The divorce took place in 2017...

Failure to Challenge Repaving Results in Loss of Title

20th June, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

Failing to take active steps to protect your land from use by another can produce unfortunate effects, as a couple from York discovered recently. The couple own a bungalow which has a front driveway adjacent to that of the next-door bungalow – a common design. The two effectively blend into one before reaching the road. In 1986 their neighbour repaved her drive with new paving tiles and brick edging, and in so doing went across the boundary line between the two properties. She parked her car on the area and...

Just Because You Agree Doesn't Mean the Court Will

18th June, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

It is common in legal disputes for the two sides to agree to suspend the court proceedings for a period so that they can get as much agreed between them as possible, and gather their evidence and prepare their arguments over what remains in dispute without the pressure of an impending hearing date. Such an agreement is called a 'standstill agreement', and if proceedings are served in time it is usual for the court to agree to the requested hiatus. In a recent family law case, one of the UK's...