Factors considered by the court

Section 25 checklist

The starting point for the courts and practitioners alike on an application for a financial order is the checklist set out in section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and the equivalent provisions in Schedule 5, Part 5 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004). The factors are:

•
the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources that each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future, including, in the case of earning capacity, any increase in that capacity that it would, in the opinion of the court, be reasonable to expect a party to the marriage to take steps to acquire
•
the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities that each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future
•
the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage
•
the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage
•
any physical or mental disability of either of

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

The Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025—The future is here to stay

Private Client analysis: The widely anticipated Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 (‘the Digital Assets Act 2025’) received Royal Assent on 2 December 2025 which has, at least in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, cleared the pathway for the potential treatment of digital assets and technologies such as crypto-currencies as objects of personal property rights. The word potential is used above because the question of whether or not certain digital assets and technologies ought to be treated as objects of personal property rights is to be left to the courts. In the context of an ever-changing technological landscape, an incremental development of the common law in this respect is the safe and correct option as explained further below. Written by Raghav Trivedi, a barrister from St Philips Chambers in Birmingham

Family weekly highlights—12 February 2026

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes details of the latest minutes from the Family Procedure Rules Committee meeting and the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos’ speech addressing AI integration in civil and criminal justice systems. Recent judgments on fostering or adoption, child maintenance and losses from a self-employed business and legal services payment orders are also considered. A new How to guide has been added on how to complete financial statement in Form E.

Family weekly highlights—5 February 2026

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analyses of cross-border child maintenance after Brexit, together with the power of the Court of Protection to make orders to implement best interests decisions. Details of payment by account number selection for placement applications via the Family Public Law portal are set out. Recent judgments on the disclosure of information from concluded public children proceedings to the disclosure and barring service, special guardianship orders and the determination of local authority accommodation duties under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 are also considered.

Master of the Rolls speech addresses AI integration in civil and criminal justice systems

The Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, delivered a speech on 4 February 2026 examining how artificial intelligence (AI) could enable civil and criminal justice outcomes to be delivered more quickly and efficiently than through human decision-making alone. He highlighted that a Digital Justice System is being established under the Online Procedure Rules Committee, while emphasising that human oversight must remain central to final justice decisions. He also raised questions as to whether machines can constitute ‘independent and impartial tribunals’ for the purposes of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The speech also identified several key unresolved issues, including when parties should be required to consent to machine-made decisions and how article 14 of the EU AI Act may affect the deployment of AI within justice systems.