Family law (couples) and coercive control

How is coercive control linked to divorce?

When a marriage or civil partnership ends, the court divides money and property under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. One factor on the checklist is conduct, but only where it would be “inequitable to disregard it”. The House of Lords set a high bar in Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane, requiring conduct that is “obvious and gross”. Divorce is not a forum for punishing marital wrongdoing.

Courts have also looked for a financial link. The courts have treated financial consequence as a necessary ingredient for conduct to be reflected in the outcome, even if it is not easily measured.

Coercive control cases are testing that approach. In LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473, the wife had previously been found to have subjected the husband to coercive and controlling behaviour, physical and economic abuse, and false sexual abuse allegations. The judge reduced her notional 50% share of the matrimonial assets by 40%.

The judge that where a party is responsible for coercive control, especially with significant violence, the financial impact may be hard to measure and can only be evaluated broadly. The decision should not be read to mean that every finding of coercive control will change an award, as it turned on unusual and extreme facts.

Coercive control can matter in other ways too. It may be linked to hidden assets or incomplete disclosure, years of financial dependence, damaged earning capacity, or pressure to accept an unfair settlement. Family courts also have protections for people who have experienced abuse, such as special measures at hearings and a ban on abusers cross-examining their victims in person.

Reform has been discussed. A report has raised the possibility of a new section 25(2) factor referring to domestic abuse, without making firm recommendations.