In a recent family court case, HK v SS [2025] EWFC 5 (B), the Family Court sackled the complexities of reconciliation and divorce under the new legal framework introduced by the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020). This case provides valuable insights into how the court exercises its discretion when parties reconcile after a conditional order has been granted.
Background
The parties, HK (the applicant) and SS (the respondent), were married in June 2011. After 11 years of marriage, they separated, and HK applied for divorce in May 2022, after the new ‘no fault’ divorce came in. The conditional order was granted in October 2022, but neither party applied for the final order immediately. Instead, they reconciled in March 2023, only to separate again in June 2024.
Legal Issues
The key issues before the court were:
- Whether a conditional order should be made final despite the parties’ reconciliation for 15 months.
- If not, whether the conditional order should be rescinded and the divorce application dismissed.
- How the court should exercise its discretion under the new rules.
Court’s Considerations
HHJ Simmonds, as the National Lead Judge for Divorce, provided guidance on these issues. The DDSA 2020 introduced significant changes, including the removal of the need to prove fault and the introduction of a sole ground for divorce: irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The court must take the applicant’s statement as conclusive evidence of this breakdown.
Reconciliation and Final Orders
The court considered the reconciliation period and its impact on the divorce process. Under the new rules, parties can reconcile for up to a year without any court enquiry. However, if the reconciliation lasts longer, the court must determine whether the original basis for the divorce still stands.
Judgment
HHJ Simmonds concluded that an attempted reconciliation of up to two years should not bar the court from making a final order. This period allows parties to attempt reconciliation without feeling pressured by court-imposed timelines. In this case, the reconciliation lasted 15 months, and both parties agreed that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. Therefore, the court granted the application for the final order.
Conclusion
The case of HK v SS highlights the court’s flexible approach under the DDSA 2020, allowing parties time to reconcile while ensuring that the divorce process remains fair and straightforward. This judgment provides clear guidance on how the court will handle similar cases in the future, balancing the need for finality in divorce proceedings with the possibility of reconciliation.