Controlling or Coercive Behaviour and its financial ramifications in divorce proceedings

It has been just over a decade since the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour came into force with the Serious Crime Act 2015. With this offence, the criminal law formally recognised that prolonged emotional, psychological and financial abuse can be just as damaging to a victim as physical abuse. The impact of such behaviour has also been recognised by the family courts, particularly in the context of children and applications for non-molestation and occupation orders.
 

However, there has, to date, been limited consideration by the family courts of the potential for a spouse’s coercive and controlling behaviour to constitute a contributing factor for the purposes of reducing their financial settlement on divorce. The recent judgment of LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473 is therefore significant in that the judge, Mr Justice Cusworth, took the wife’s coercive and controlling behaviour towards the husband into account in assessing the level of the financial award to be made in her favour.

Defining coercive or controlling behaviour

Under criminal law, the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour is defined by section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 as;

1. Where person A repeatedly or continuously engaged in behaviour towards another person, B, that is controlling and coercive.
2. At the time of the behaviour A and B are personally connected.
3. A’s behaviour has a serious effect on B, and
4. A knowns or ought to know that it would have a serious effect on B.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 defined behaviour as "abusive" if it consists of any of the following: physical or sexual abuse, violent or threatening behaviour, controlling or coercive behaviour, economic abuse, psychological, emotional or other abuse. The same act widened the scope of “personally connected” to include people who are or have been in an intimate personal relationship together, such that personally connected individuals can now include relatives, ex-partners, and individuals who share a child. This extension followed a government review which highlighted that many people can continue to experience coercive or controlling behaviour after separation from their abuser. This widened the scope of people who can allege domestic abuse in both the criminal and family courts.

Will my spouse’s coercive and controlling conduct affect the financial outcome on our divorce?

The “conduct” of each of the parties is listed in s25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 as one of the factors the court should have regard to when deciding a financial order on divorce. Domestic abuse, and coercive or controlling behaviour, falls squarely into the definition of conduct under s25, as a form of “personal misconduct” between parties.

Nonetheless, until now, case law has made it clear that “personal misconduct” between parties “will only be taken into account in very rare circumstances” of “gross and obvious” conduct, and only where such conduct results in a financial consequence, such as the concealment of assets as part of the financial disclosure process.

As recently as 2024, in his judgment in N v J [2024] EWFC 184, Mr Justice Peel reinforced the high bar for personal misconduct to be taken into consideration in financial remedy proceedings, confirming the high threshold remains “undisturbed by the recent focus on domestic abuse in society and the family justice system” and that the requirement of a financial consequence to that conduct remained in place.

LP v MP: a change of perspective?

However, the recent case of LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473 indicates a judicial willingness, in appropriate circumstances, to consider a spouse’s coercive and controlling behaviour when determining the outcome of financial proceedings.

Within that judgment, Mr Justice Cusworth recognised that “where a party has been found responsible for coercive controlling behaviour within a marriage, especially when that behaviour includes a significant element of violence, the negative financial impact may well not be easily measurable… That does not however mean that such an impact will not be present”.

He went on to identify “a real risk of unfairness to victims of violent or coercive controlling behaviour, if the lack of readily quantifiable financial loss prevents the courts from even considering the fairness of taking their assailant’s behaviour into account in determining the outcome of a financial remedy application”.

In this case, Mr Justice Cusworth took into account the wife’s “deplorable conduct” towards her husband (which included coercive and controlling behaviour, verbal, emotional and serious physical abuse) and found that this conduct had had a financial impact. The judge drew inferences regarding funds which the wife had already received from the husband for reasons which had transpired to be “untrue”, and as to the extent of her overseas assets, as well as making adjustments to reflect her lack of contribution to those assets. These factors were taken into account in his determination that the wife should receive only 60% of her notional half-share of the assets.

With this judgment, Mr Justice Cusworth takes a more nuanced approach to recognising the financial ramifications of coercive and controlling behaviour, accepting that the fact that a financial consequence may not be easily quantifiable, does not mean its impact is any less felt by the victim. 

Notably, the case involved a victim who was the financially stronger party to the marriage, and so did not explore the financial impact coercive or controlling behaviour can have on financially weaker parties. For example, the Resolution report “Domestic Abuse in financial remedy proceedings” recognised that victims of domestic abuse and coercive controlling may have had less opportunity to accumulate assets, develop their long-term earning capacity or otherwise achieve self-sufficiency.

The facts of LP v MP were certainly unique and there is some disagreement amongst family lawyers as to the extent to which this judgment will impact upon the scope of future conduct arguments in financial cases involving allegations of coercive or controlling behaviour, particularly where a financial consequence to that behaviour cannot be identified. Nonetheless, the judgment is a welcome recognition by the judiciary of the complex nature of coercive and controlling behaviour, and the wide-ranging consequences it can have for its victims.

Interplay between family and criminal proceedings

Since 2015, the CPS have developed their understanding of the nuances of coercive and controlling behaviour by working in partnership with support organisations and Independent Domestic Violence Advisors. The CPS have, for example, included “gaslighting”, “love-bombing” and  controlling another’s social media accounts as forms of psychological abuse within their statutory guidance. With each year there has been a gradual increase in the number of controlling or coercive behaviour offences being charged, with almost 5,000 charged in 2024 alone. This is reflective of an increased recognition and understanding of the nature of such behaviour, but it remains the case that the criminal and family courts approach matters differently.

Mr Justice Cusworth’s judgment in LP v MP acknowledged the fact that criminal charges had been brought against the wife for “engaging in controlling/coercive behaviour in an intimate/family relationship” as a result of her alleged abusive behaviour towards the husband, and that the charge included economic and financial abuse. He noted that the wife had failed to attend the first hearing in those proceedings and that she was yet to make a guilty or not guilty plea. Importantly, he also recognised the differing burden of proof as between family proceedings (in which findings are made on the balance of probabilities) and criminal proceedings (in which the threshold is “beyond reasonable doubt”). The fact that he had made these factual determinations within the financial proceedings (and that related findings had been made within the Children Act proceedings between the same parties) did not therefore mean that the criminal standard had been met or that these findings will be mirrored in the criminal proceedings.

Despite the differing approaches and burdens of proof, it may well be the case that the legitimacy provided by a family court finding of controlling or coercive behaviour, either in the context of children or financial proceedings, could fuel a complainant’s confidence to subsequently report such behaviour to the police. Given the higher burden of proof in criminal proceedings, it is also likely that a prior determination of coercive and controlling behaviour by the criminal courts would carry considerable weight in any subsequent family court proceedings. Although, in LP v MP, Mr Justice Cusworth declined to delay his decision to await the outcome of the criminal trial, it is also within a judge’s power to delay family court proceedings to await such a criminal determination.

With this judgment it is clear that both the criminal and family courts are increasingly willing to engage with and consider the role and impact of controlling or coercive behaviour in personal relationships.

If you would like to get in touch, please contact any of the authors below.

Charlotte Daintith, Cate Maguire and Rebecca Smart