The recent coverage of the divorce between Alice Evans and Ioan Gruffudd has generated a significant amount of interest, not only because both parties are well known, but because the dispute has involved allegations of harassment, restraining orders and ongoing litigation long after the separation itself.
This celebrity divorce has raised a number of questions for people going through a separation, the key one of these being:
If one spouse harasses the other after separation, does that affect the financial settlement in divorce proceedings?
In England and Wales, the answer is yes, potentially – but only in limited circumstances.
That often comes as a surprise to people who expect the court to make orders in line with their view of morality. Many people assume that if one party has behaved particularly badly, the court will compensate the other by awarding them a larger share of the assets. English family law does not generally work that way.
The starting point: financial remedies are not about punishment
When a marriage ends, the court can make orders dealing with:
- property,
- savings and investments,
- pensions,
- spousal maintenance (i.e. payment from one party to another), and
- child maintenance in certain circumstances.
These orders can either be made by consent or when after financial remedy proceedings and are governed principally by the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
The court’s role is to reach a fair outcome in light of the parties’ financial circumstances. It is not there to punish one spouse for being the “bad” party in the marriage. That distinction is important. Conduct that is morally objectionable may be highly relevant emotionally, but it will not necessarily affect the financial outcome.
What does the court look at?
Under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the court must consider all the circumstances of the case, including:
- the income and earning capacity of each party;
- their financial needs and obligations;
- the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage;
- the ages of the parties;
- the duration of the marriage;
- any physical or mental disability;
- the contributions each has made or is likely to make; and
- conduct, but only where it would be inequitable to disregard it.
It is that final factor that raises the question of harassment.
Conduct: a much narrower concept than most people think
Section 25(2)(g) allows the court to consider:
“the conduct of each of the parties, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it.”
Those words set a deliberately high threshold.
The courts have consistently taken the view that financial remedy proceedings should not become an inquiry into every unpleasant aspect of a failed relationship. Judges are understandably reluctant to spend time deciding who was ruder, more unreasonable, or more hurtful during the marriage.
As a result, conduct arguments succeed only in exceptional cases. Examples might include:
- serious physical violence resulting in long-term disability;
- deliberate concealment or destruction of assets;
- fraudulent conduct affecting the parties’ finances; or
- extreme behaviour with clear financial consequences.
Ordinary marital misconduct, however upsetting, is rarely enough.
Where does harassment fit in?
Harassment can range from persistent unwanted messages and social media abuse through to stalking, intimidation or coercive and controlling behaviour.
Harassment that is unlikely to change the financial award
Suppose one spouse repeatedly sends hostile emails, makes disparaging comments online, or behaves in a controlling or emotionally abusive way after separation.
That conduct may be:
- distressing;
- relevant to an application for a non-molestation order;
- relevant to police involvement; or
- relevant to arrangements for children.
What it does not usually do is increase the other party’s share of the matrimonial assets.
The family court is primarily concerned with housing needs, income needs, available resources and fairness, not with awarding damages for emotional harm caused by the breakdown of the relationship.
Situations where harassment may become relevant
There are, however, some important exceptions.
- Litigation misconduct
If the harassment takes the form of repeated vexatious applications, deliberate breaches of court orders, intimidation of the other party during the proceedings, or conduct designed to drive up legal costs, the court may take a different view.
Although the usual rule in financial remedy proceedings is that each party bears their own costs, the court can make a costs order where one party’s conduct in the litigation has been unreasonable.
In practice, this is one of the most common ways in which post-separation harassment can have a financial consequence.
- Financial impact on the other party
If the harassment has caused a genuine financial loss, that may also be relevant.
For example, if one party’s conduct has led to:
- time off work,
- loss of employment,
- significant medical treatment,
- additional security measures, or
- other identifiable expenditure,
the resulting reduction in earning capacity or increase in financial need may feed into the court’s assessment of maintenance or other provision.
The court is not compensating the victim for the harassment itself; rather, it is considering the financial consequences that have resulted from it.
- Economic abuse
Since the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, there has been greater recognition that domestic abuse can include economic abuse as well as physical or emotional abuse.
Examples might include:
- preventing a spouse from accessing bank accounts;
- controlling all household finances;
- forcing a partner into debt;
- interfering with their ability to work; or
- withholding money needed for basic living expenses.
Where that behaviour has affected the parties’ financial positions, it may become relevant to the court’s assessment of needs and resources.
Applying this to a high-profile divorce
Taking the Evans/Gruffudd reporting simply as a general illustration, the existence of allegations of harassment or restraining order proceedings would not automatically mean that an English court would award a larger financial settlement to the alleged victim even if, like in this case, wrongdoing has been found.
A judge in England and Wales would still focus on questions such as:
- What assets are available?
- What are each party’s housing needs?
- What income resources exist?
- What pension provision is available?
- Have either party’s actions affected those resources?
- Has there been litigation misconduct warranting a costs order?
That analysis is often less dramatic than the media coverage surrounding celebrity divorces might suggest!
The distinction between protection and financial provision
One of the reasons this area causes confusion is that family law provides different remedies for different problems.
If someone is experiencing harassment then other remedies are available outside of financial remedy proceedings:
- a non-molestation order;
- an occupation order;
- police involvement;
- stalking or harassment proceedings; or
- other protective measures.
A practical example
Imagine a divorcing couple with assets worth £1 million.
Example 1: unpleasant but financially irrelevant conduct
One spouse sends abusive text messages and posts critical comments on social media. The behaviour is unpleasant and may justify protective action, but it has not affected either party’s finances.
The court is still likely to divide the assets according to needs, sharing and fairness, with little or no adjustment for the harassment itself.
Example 2: harassment with financial consequences
Now imagine that the same spouse embarks on a sustained campaign of intimidation that causes the other party to take extended sick leave, incur substantial counselling costs, and spend tens of thousands of pounds responding to unnecessary court applications.
In that situation, the court may consider:
- a costs order;
- the reduced earning capacity of the affected party; and
- whether additional maintenance or other provision is required to meet their resulting needs.
The crucial difference is the evidence of financial impact.
Conclusion
The publicity surrounding Alice Evans and Ioan Gruffudd’s divorce is a reminder that separation disputes can become highly acrimonious, particularly where allegations of harassment and restraining order breaches are involved.
From the perspective of financial matters in England and Wales however, the key point is that harassment by one spouse does not usually lead to a larger share of the matrimonial assets. It may become relevant where it has caused identifiable financial loss, affected earning capacity, amounted to economic abuse, or constituted litigation misconduct serious enough to justify a costs order.
For most divorcing couples, the financial outcome will continue to be determined principally by needs, resources, and the court’s assessment of what is fair, rather than by an attempt to reward or punish either party for their behaviour during or after the relationship.
At McAlister Family Law, we advise clients on all aspects of relationship breakdown, including financial remedy proceedings, domestic abuse injunctions, and complex post-separation disputes. If you would like tailored advice about how allegations of harassment may interact with divorce or financial proceedings, please contact our family law team for a confidential discussion.
