When the Court Says No: Navigating Scenarios Where Financial Orders Aren’t Just and Equitable

Family lawyers often focus on advocating for financial orders, but what happens when the Court determines that making any orders is not just and equitable? Since the pivotal Stanford case, this issue has taken on new significance, requiring practitioners to carefully assess the circumstances under which the Court may refuse to intervene. This session delves into:

• The key cases since Stanford where the Court has declined to make financial orders, identifying any emerging trends
• How the Court’s approach in high-value property disputes post-Smith & Fields aligns—or doesn’t—with established principles
• Factors the Court considers when deciding whether it is not just and equitable to make orders, including financial and non-financial contributions, relationship duration, and ongoing needs
• Risk management strategies for practitioners advising clients in cases where no financial orders might be made, including early case assessment and alternative dispute resolution options
• The practical impact of these rulings on client advice, exploring whether such cases are fact-specific outliers or signal a shift in judicial reasoning