The breakdown of any relationship can be a terribly upsetting experience.

No matter the fine detail of why couples part, it can undermine not just the love but the trust which individuals may have had in each other.

Even more, the difficulties created by separations are multiplied when it comes to children and, of course, the process by which joint assets are divided.

I am only too well aware from my own caseload that how some of those assets – particularly businesses or company shares – are treated can have lasting, generational impacts, both good and bad.

Which is perhaps why I paid particular attention to a recent interview given by Jill Stein, the restaurateur and ex-wife of chef Rick Stein.

She was speaking to promote a book celebrating the 50th anniversary of the opening of the couple’s eaterie in Cornwall.

However, what struck me was how they both managed to continue their close professional relationship even after they split up.

They married in 1975, the year in which The Seafood Restaurant opened, but divorced 32 years later, after Mr Stein had an affair.

Despite the break-up, Jill Stein told The Independent newspaper that “I’m not leaving my business because we’ve separated”. Part of that determination was down to her wanting to ensure that the enterprise ultimately passed to the couple’s three sons.

Worries about what the future may hold for a family business after a divorce are, in my experience, fairly common, although I have found it relatively unusual for both spouses to continue working side-by-side to guarantee success.

Statistics show that there are more than five million family businesses of varying sizes and in various sectors across the UK.

In some cases, those companies have long histories, contributing to family wealth over centuries.

In many others, running a business is a far more recent consideration and does not necessarily involve building a major corporation.

More than 99 per cent of all the companies registered in the UK are small-to-medium-sized (SMEs), with the vast majority employing fewer than 10 staff.

The number of British companies has also grown dramatically since the turn of the century – up by 64 per cent, in fact.

Yet no matter how stable and secure an enterprise appears, divorce can pose something of an existential threat.

That is because of the powers open to the family court about how business and other assets can be divided.

Upon divorce, there is an emphasis on trying to secure a clean break in the finances of the spouses concerned.

When it comes to business, that can involve ordering the sale of shares, using a business to generate a lump sum or the sale of a company itself. All three scenarios can be commercially catastrophic.

Being forced to put shares on the open market might lead to new shareholders, including private equity firms, coming in with new ideas about how best to run the business.

A company founder might find themselves reduced from a majority to a minority shareholder overnight.

Raising a lump sum might greatly reduce a business’s liquidity in what could be a tricky time for trading and, therefore, jeopardise ongoing viability.

An outright sale would mean that a family business is no longer run by the family who set it up – the kind of uncertainty which Jill Stein and recent clients of mine have been keen to avoid.

Even allowing for how the circumstances of a divorce, such as an affair, can erode trust, some separating spouses opt not to walk away but to become even more closely involved with the running of a business.

That requires considerable work, as Jill Stein has acknowledged. It also demands collaboration from more than the parties themselves.

In one recent case, we worked with tax and corporate lawyers to construct bespoke shareholders’ agreements for the individuals going through a divorce, even speaking with one of their children already working for the family business – and whose future interests both parents were adamant in wishing to protect.

That collaboration, I would also suggest, is more achievable outside the family court than within it.

The focus on practicalities and respective needs means that there can be little if any room for sentiment.

Non-court dispute resolution (NCDR) methods, like mediation, lend themselves to the kind of frank but constructive ’round-table discussions which helped deliver the best possible result for our client and her children.

In that sense, Jill Stein’s example is a very positive one, demonstrating how the ability to work through the upset of a divorce can ensure that after all the effort of starting a family business, people who have the right support can keep all the benefits within the family.