Review of Recent Article in the Financial Times

There is a perception that is often portrayed in the media that getting divorced needs to be a battle.  So widely is this concept represented that people often get into a ‘fighting’ mentality even before separation.  By the time they are looking to sort out the practical and legal matters it can be difficult for them to accept that the system is, in fact, geared towards resolving matters fairly, amicably and by agreement.

That is not to say that their divorce will be easy or that there will not be hurdles to overcome in engaging with someone whom they no longer trust or while they may still be processing feelings of hurt, anger or grief. But it does not have to be a ‘fight’ and expecting one can sometimes make it more likely to become a reality.

If you have any doubts as to why reducing conflict in family proceedings is a good thing then here are few things to think about:

-          Parental conflict harms children and can have lifelong consequences;

-          Increased conflict often means increased legal costs;

-          Contested proceedings are stressful, uncertain and can take years to resolve.

One of the aims of the Family Law Language Project is to help make family law less hostile by improving the understanding and use of language. We keep an eye out for any misuse of language in the media or use of language that is aggressive and draw attention to why that language is unhelpful.

The recent article in the Financial Times entitled “Meet the divorce detectives” has plenty of examples of ‘fighting’ language.  In the pre-amble, it describes divorce as “financial battle grounds” and words such as ‘war’, ‘fight’, ‘battle’ and ‘show down’ appear throughout the article. Context, however, is key and the focus of this article is on cases when one party hides assets and how difficult this can make the process of identifying wealth and achieving a fair outcome.

These situations, where one party actively and deceitfully tries to frustrate their ex-partner’s legitimate claims, is clearly different from when both parties negotiate honestly and ultimately want to achieve a fair outcome even if they struggle to agree on what that should be. Is this a distinction that justifies a different and more militant use of language though?

There is no doubt that hiding assets, lying and trying to cheat someone out of their fair share is wrong. It is also true that being on the other side of this behaviour is challenging and you will have to work all the harder to ensure a fair result.  Perhaps, in this context, it any criticism would be more appropriately levelled at the conduct which has brought about the use of such language.

The FT article give examples of the consequences for those who flout the rules and try to hide assets on divorce. These consequences can include unfavourable orders being made against them, orders to pay their ex-partner’s legal costs and even imprisonment. I would add to this list the wider and potentially longer-lasting damage that they are doing to themselves, their ex-partners, their children and their families by unnecessarily creating conflict and a situation that is being described as a war, a battle or a fight.  

The FT article was published on 14 June 2025 and can be found on the FT website subject to subject to subscription costs.

What are your thoughts? Contact us at info@thefamilylawlanguageproject.co.uk or tag us #TheFLLProject if you see any other articles with #familylawlanguage