Here for you: Please note that Brookman’s services remain uninterrupted during this time. Read more

Family Courts: How Late Can I Introduce Evidence About Finances And Housing Needs?

Date: January 25th, 2020 - Written by: Brookman Solicitors


When a divorcing couple can’t reach a financial settlement themselves they must instead rely on the family courts to make a final decision on the division of assets. As with any court proceedings there’s a strict timetable. In a financial relief hearing it’s crucial to assemble evidence of your needs and present your arguments at the appropriate time. If you are seeking to purchase a new home following the divorce for example, it’s common to provide the court with details of the price and location of several suitable properties. In the recent case of AR v ML the wife failed to produce any examples of suitable property during the course of proceedings. In a rather unusual step her lawyers tried to do so after the judge had made a decision. We discuss what happened below.


Changing A Financial Order

As we have pointed out before, family judges focus on reaching financial orders that are final so that the estranged couple and their children can have the highest degree of certainty around money matters post divorce. There are however limited grounds to set aside a financial order. These are when one side can establish that there has been:

  • Fraud
  • Material non-disclosure
  • A mistake
  • A subsequent, unforseeable event which invalidates the original order

If someone does want to set aside a financial order they should seek to do so without delay as it’s not something that is normally encouraged.


The Case Of Ar v Ml

During the hearing in the case of AR v ML the judge had been critical of the wife’s evidence about her housing needs. Although she stated that she could find an appropriate property in her local area for £525,000 she did not produce any evidence to back this up. The husband argued that £400,000 was sufficient to meet her housing needs. In making the financial order the judge awarded the wife received 49% of the total marital assets (amounting to just 412,000 after payment of debts – less than what she claimed she needed to buy a house). These figures were based partly on the fact that, even if the wife were awarded the larger amount she sought, there was no evidence that she would be able to use the money to buy the kind of property she wanted.

It may seem a slightly technical legal point but while the judge had delivered the financial judgment along the lines described above, the formal court order reflecting the decision had not been ‘perfected’ or drawn up and approved. And it was immediately after the judgment was delivered in court but before the order was drawn up and sealed that the wife’s barrister sought to introduce fresh evidence to justify her claim for a larger share of the marital assets that would enable her to buy a suitable property.

After listening to detailed argument the judge agreed to the wife’s request to be able to present this new information. Instead of being asked to finalise the order for the court’s approval the parties were given further directions – the wife to file a statement about her housing needs and the husband to file a statement in response. Perhaps unsurprisingly the husband appealed this ruling.


The Husband’s Appeal

The High Court judge who heard the appeal, Mr. Justice Mostyn was unequivocal in his support for the husband’s position. In what amounted to a strongly worded criticism of the trial judge Mostyn said that the decision was not based on any proper legal principle. If it had been reached in the exercise of permitted judicial discretion it was, in Mostyn’s opinion ‘plainly wrong’. He continued,

It was merely another example of counsel on behalf of a disappointed litigant seeking spuriously to try to get the judge to change her mind immediately after judgment has been delivered, to which the judge should not have succumbed.

The full judgment makes clear that a wish to adhere to the principle of finality in financial remedy applications weighed heavily on the mind of Mr. Justice Mostyn when arriving at his decision.



This case provides a warning to anyone preparing for a financial remedy case. Although the appeal decision was disappointing for the wife it does greatly strengthen the idea that – more than many other types of case cases – financial decisions made by the courts in divorce actions should be as clear and final as possible. Introducing evidence late on in the proceedings, when arguments have been made and appropriate conclusions drawn will only ever be permitted in exceptional circumstances. In his judgment Mostyn J. quoted an earlier commercial law case where the judge remarked that:

“The trial is not a dress rehearsal. It is the first and last night of the show.”

Mostyn J. believed this was a maxim that should apply strongly in all financial remedy cases. After all, financial hearings mean the parties incur enormous expense and experience high levels of stress. It’s clear that, if the wife in AR v ML – or her lawyers – had prepared with due diligence they could, without difficulty, have supplied the necessary details of housing needs at the first hearing.

Contact Us

If you are affected by any of the issues we have raised please call us for further advice on 44 (0) 20 7430 8470 or contact us here.




Google Reviews

Brookman Solicitors

70 Reviews

Yesima Hamid 04/09/2020

I want to highly commend Brookman Solicitors firm. I had the privilege of getting very thorough and sensible advice from their solicitor Jennifer Douglas. I don't have enough praise for her. She made me feel at ease and 'got me' and understood very well all the issues and her advice was on point. I felt she had my interest at heart in all the different matters. She was very accommodating and willing. She truly made a difference. She has great insight and I truly recommend her and the firm. They are very professional with the human touch.

Roohie Mahajan 16/08/2020

I am so happy that I hired their services. I am from India and it was my international divorce case. My ex husband is in the UK. I had a free telephone conversation with Henry Brookman and I was so satisfied that without even meeting him I was so confident. My case was handled in the best way possible.

He is probably the one of the best lawyers in the world. He is extremely competent, professional, intelligent and empathetic. The only lawyer who genuinely work to help you rather than making money. He is a very experienced lawyer and he saved me so much money. He is so calm and kind towards his approach. He is the most genuine person I have come across.

I just came to London once to attend my hearing. My husband and his solicitors made it so complicated. My ex husband has to spend double the amount of legal fees than me. This is the difference between hiring a good experienced lawyer. Their fees might be expensive but good lawyer will make you save money at the end. Finally at the end I won the case and my husband has to pay all my legal fees without me travelling to the UK. I will always be eternally grateful to Henry Brookman and Brookman Solicitors. I am falling short of words to praise them.

I highly recommend their services. Keep up the good work.

Jen Ade 23/07/2020

I had an initial consultation and Henry was well prepared. He gave great advice and followed through quite quickly. He was very helpful.

Chris Mullins 15/07/2020

Henry and team were most professional, considerate and efficient when handling the financial proceedings owing to my overseas divorce. I recommend their services highly. International circumstance was at first to me most daunting and confusing, given each country had its' own unique approach. Thankfully Henry was knowledgeable of the law on either side of the seas and able therefore to provide best guidance and reasoning to me which enabled favourable settlement!

Wim Jansen 24/06/2020

I contacted Brookman to ask for information regarding the validity of an international divorce court ruling. They were very quick in providing me with the right information. When I had another question a few months later around children matters I phoned them again and after taking some background information and contact details they booked me in for a free telephone consultation with 1 of their partners Talitha Brookman. She spent half an hour of her time explaining to me what I could expect and provided legal advice. All was free of charge. I would not hesitate to contact them again should any matter become more formal and have to go through court. The service has been quick, professional and very friendly.