Does a clean break financial order mean that there is a clean break from further financial claims by my spouse?

Navigating divorce law can often feel overwhelming, with many myths and misconceptions clouding the process.

At Boodle Hatfield, our team understands the importance of clarity and accurate information during life’s most personal and challenging times. That’s why we’ve created our Family Law Mythbusters series—to address common misunderstandings. Partner, William Rollin outlines the answer to the below myth.

Myth – a clean break financial order is a clean break from further financial claims by your ex

Imagine the scenario. A notional Husband (H) and notional Wife (W) divorce acrimoniously. They fail to resolve the finances in mediation. They cannot resolve the finances through solicitor correspondence, round table meetings or any form of Dispute Resolution. Having exhausted other options – they wade through protracted and emotionally-exhausting litigation. The judge at final hearing transfers a home, allocates investments, makes pension sharing orders and orders the high earner (in this case W) to pay a lengthy term of spousal maintenance. The order is explicitly a clean break in respect of property, capital and pension sharing.

H, W, their children, families and friends heave great sighs of relief. It’s over! Emotional scars begin to heal and everyone moves on. Years pass. The unpleasantness is dwindling in memory’s rear view mirror… until our notional H applies back to court to vary maintenance payments.

H has struggled to meaningfully establish an earning capacity (perhaps due to illness or unanticipated child-caring obligations). In the interim, W has been repeatedly promoted with corresponding uplifts to her income. Life in H’s home is at discount supermarket standards – but in W’s homes the children enjoy every luxury.

To W’s horror, H asks the court not only to increase the quantum of payments but also to extend the maintenance term. Noting that W’s capital position has dramatically improved over the period since divorce – H also asks the court to capitalise the uplifted and extended maintenance payments by making  a further pension sharing order or a final lump sum order from W’s capital.

W turns to her lawyer and asks – what madness is this? We had a clean break didn’t we?

In a case like this, the term ‘clean break’ isn’t quite as clean – or as final as W might wish. In short, in accordance with the legislation and depending on the drafting of the original order:

• H can come back and ask for more (an upward variation);
• H can (in certain cases) ask for an extension of the term (duration) of payments;
• H can even (if W has sufficient capital) ask for maintenance to be paid in a lump sum payment or by way of a further pension sharing order (capitalisation).

Applying for – or defending – a variation of maintenance is an inherently nuanced area of law. Expert advice should be taken early to manage and mitigate risk.