Looking for help in your family court proceedings?Bridge The Gap is a free, community-built guide to UK family court.

Finances

Conduct

1 min read

One of the factors the court must consider when deciding a fair financial settlement on divorce, under section 25(2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The court looks at 'the conduct of each of the parties' — but only if it would be inequitable to disregard it. This is a high bar: ordinary behaviour, even adultery or unkindness, usually isn't enough. Conduct that can matter includes gross personal misconduct, recklessly dissipating family assets (for example, gambling them away), fraud, or serious litigation misconduct. Conduct is rarely the deciding factor, but where it's serious it can shift the outcome.

In Plain English

This refers to behavior so bad that the court decides it should change the final financial settlement. While judges usually ignore things like cheating, they may act if someone has done something extreme, like gambling away the entire family savings.

Related pages on Bridge The Gap

  • Settlement checklist

This content reflects observational insights and lived community experiences. It does not constitute legal advice — always consult a qualified professional for your specific circumstances.

See this term in a real gap

A "gap" is a common assumption people hold going into family court, set against what the court actually does. The bold line below is the assumption — not a fact. The reality underneath is what the court typically observes.

Gap #544

The assumption

Enforcing the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) increase you're owed gives the other side grounds to apply to reduce your maintenance.

The reality

Asking the payer to comply with an existing order is not conduct that justifies a variation, and it does not create new grounds for one. A variation application requires a change of circumstances since the order was made — not the fact that you enforced it. Retaliatory applications happen, but enforcement itself is not a trigger the court recognises. Keep your request factual, in writing, and keep copies.

Gap #541

The assumption

Refusing the other side's proposal counts as unreasonable conduct that could trigger a costs order against you.

The reality

Turning down a proposal is not poor conduct in itself. The conduct that justifies a costs order is about how you run the case — missing deadlines, ignoring court orders, not giving full disclosure, running up costs on points that don't matter, or unreasonably refusing to engage with the process. Rejecting an offer you genuinely believe is unfair is your right, not misconduct. Send your proposal when you are ready, keep your replies factual and polite, and keep a copy of everything.

Gap #540

The assumption

If you lose or turn down an offer, the other side can automatically make you pay their costs.

The reality

The general rule in financial remedy cases is no order for costs (Family Procedure Rules, rule 28.3). Costs are the exception, not the default. The court will only order costs where a party's conduct in the litigation justifies it — things like missing deadlines, ignoring court orders, failing to give full disclosure, running up costs on points that don't matter, or unreasonably refusing to engage. Turning down a proposal is not poor conduct in itself.

Gap #466

The assumption

(Domestic Abuse Findings) How I speak to solicitors, Cafcass or contact centre staff has nothing to do with contact.

The reality

Where domestic abuse has been found, PD12J paragraph 37 asks the court to consider how the parent is likely to behave during contact and whether they are using the process to continue abuse. Abusive emails, swearing at staff and threatening language are evidence the court can use to answer those questions. In a recent appeal, this conduct was a central reason contact stayed supervised.

Published19 August 2026Last reviewed23 September 2026

Navigating court alone?

A McKenzie Friend can help you understand terms like these in the context of your case.

Find your support

Please note

Please note: Nothing on this website constitutes legal advice and we are not liable for any reliance on the information provided. Family court rules and procedures can change, and whilst this was correct at the time of writing, circumstances may have changed since publication. For up-to-date guidance, please refer to Gov.uk or consult a qualified legal professional.

Join our newsletter

Community insights and new guides from Bridge The Gap, sent to your inbox. No spam, unsubscribe any time.

Bridge The Gap

Family Court Reality: empowering UK litigants in person with the insight and resources to navigate the justice system with confidence.

For McKenzie Friends

If you'd like to be featured on Bridge The Gap, we'd love to hear from you.

Get In TouchWhy join Bridge The Gap?

Press & Media

Media enquiries and press releases about Bridge The Gap.

Press Enquiry

Key External Resources

Disclosure: Divorce Navigator (divorcenavigator.uk) is a separate service run by the same team as Bridge The Gap. We list it because we believe it is useful, not because we receive a fee.

Intellectual Property: All content on this website — the "Bridge The Gap" name and concept, gap analyses, case journey structures — is the intellectual property of Bridge The Gap and its creator. © 2026 Bridge The Gap. All rights reserved. Unauthorised reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of any content is strictly prohibited without prior written permission.

Bridge The Gap provides observational insights and collective community experiences only. We do not provide legal advice, legal representation, or caseworker services. Always consult a qualified legal professional for your specific circumstances.

Bridge The Gap is run by Libra Consultants, which operates this website.

No endorsement: Inclusion of a McKenzie Friend or business on Bridge The Gap is not an endorsement, recommendation or verification of that person, their services or their qualifications. Nobody is ranked or evaluated here. Explore, ask questions and make your own decisions by dealing directly with each person you choose to contact.

Made with for litigants in person•Privacy Policy••

Website byThe Back Office — Bookkeeping & Web Design

We use essential cookies to stay signed in and remember this choice. With your permission we also use Google Analytics to see which pages help people most. Privacy Policy