One of the fundamental concepts of English law is that of access to justice.

It means, in short, the right of individuals to use the courts in order to resolve legal disputes.

Whilst the essence of that notion has remained constant, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the laws which are applied to such matters to evolve over time in order to meet changing circumstances.

Legislative change doesn’t have to be momentous in itself but its impact can be significant.

Take, for example, the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/11/contents).

When it came into force in April 2022, it was not only the first major reform of relevant law in half a century but heralded the introduction of ‘no-fault’ divorce or dissolution by which spouses or civil partners could apply to end their marriages immediately without needing to blame their other half’s behaviour.

For some people, the old conduct-based petitions acted as a vent – a way of releasing some of the tensions which can naturally arise whenever a relationship ends.

One of the unforeseen outcomes of removing that was that emotions became even more invested in discussions about how divide a couple’s assets.

However, that has arguably been impacted by another change in the law, whose effects have been increasingly felt in the course of the last decade.

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (or LASPO, for short) was part of the then Government’s efforts to address the amount of public money spent on the justice system (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/10/contents).

In practice, that resulted in Legal Aid being available for far fewer types of cases in the family courts.

In the years since, it has led to far more individuals choosing to represent themselves in divorce and dissolution proceedings.

That is less of an issue when it comes to the administrative part of divorce, applying for and obtaining the two orders – the conditional and then the final order – which bring marriages or civil partnerships to an end.

Where it does pose a problem is in relation to how couples split their finances.

Family law is one of many specialist disciplines and, without the training and practical experience involved, elements which appear to the uninitiated as mere details but actually have substantial consequences can be overlooked.

That is especially true when it comes to what is known as a ‘consent order’ – effectively, a financial clean break or full-stop which prevents either party making a claim on each other’s assets in the future.

An indication of the long-lasting reach of LASPO can be gleaned by looking at figures published by the Ministry for Justice (MoJ).

The latest set show that 103,888 divorces were concluded in 2023 (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-court-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2024/family-court-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2024#main-points).

Yet in the same year, there were only 25,370 cases in which a financial remedy order – providing a lump sum by way of a clean break, spousal maintenance, pension sharing or attachment, or changes to the ownership of a property – was made.

I should point out that those two different numbers are not necessarily related to the same cases. Even so, it means that financial orders were put in place in just 24.4 per cent of divorces granted two years ago.

If we look a little closer, we can perhaps see why that might have been the case.

The MoJ data reveals that 24 per cent of people who took part in court proceedings linked to financial remedy had no legal representation.

Furthermore, the MoJ has also acknowledged that divorces now take 70 weeks on average from an initial application to granting of the final order, something which is generally only done once the financial aspects of a break-up have been determined.

Even if we set aside the 20-week ‘cooling off’ period which was included in the 2020 reforms – giving those people who really aren’t sure about whether they want to go their separate ways a chance to reconsider – it’s possible to see how having individuals pursuing a so-called ‘Do-It-Yourself Divorce’ can result in a more protracted and incomplete process.

Instead of being dealt with by non-court dispute resolution (NCDR) – mediation, arbitration or private Financial Dispute Resolution – to resolve their issues more speedily – one-quarter of applications about asset division are contested, either in whole or in part.

The absence of a financial order presents more than simply a theoretical difficulty. It means that former spouses can return at any point in the future to lay claim to a share of wealth accrued from business success, inheritance or even a lottery win.

In 2016, the environmental energy tycoon Dale Vince was ordered to pay his first wife, Kathleen Wyatt, £300,000 two decades after they divorce (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-36499818).

Their case came six years after Nigel Page paid his wife £2 million in an out-of-court settlement after she demanded a share of his Euromillions jackpot win (https://news.sky.com/story/lottery-winner-forced-to-pay-ex-wife-2m-10490786).

There is guidance available for people wanting to manage their divorces without legal representation (https://www.gov.uk/get-a-divorce) but it is not necessarily easy to understand.

It doesn’t contain, for instance, information on how to ensure accurate disclosure of respective assets or the process by which applications for consent orders should be prepared.

Last December, the Law Commission published a scoping report, requested by Rishi Sunak’s administration, about whether legislation governing the financial remedy process should also be reformed (https://lawcom.gov.uk/news/law-commission-publishes-scoping-report-on-financial-remedies-on-divorce/).

We wait to see not only whether Keir Starmer’s Government will decide that change is required.

Even if that is the case, change may not be quick in coming, given the slow pace at which parliamentary procedures move.

With that in mind, I genuinely believe that the most effective way to avoid potential financial pitfalls in the meantime is for those couples intent on splitting up to seek legal advice as soon after they come to that conclusion as possible.

I appreciate the sense of empowerment and achievement which dealing with such a landmark episode in life oneself can create. There is also the belief that doing so without obtaining legal advice means saving on legal fees.

However, if not seeking the guidance of a specialist lawyer about how best to deal with the financial aspects of divorce leads to problems which cause great stress and have to be undone later at great expense, it can be regarded as something of a false economy.