When to Intervene in Financial Remedy Proceedings

In Financial Remedy Proceedings, the court has the power to direct that a third party be added to the proceedings alongside divorcing couples.

This situation commonly arises if there is a dispute about ownership of a property.  For example, if one party maintains that a third party has a beneficial interest in a matrimonial property, consideration should be given as to whether that third party should be invited to intervene.

In practice it often happens that a grandparent gives a loan to their child and that grandparent might, upon their child’s divorce, state that they have a beneficial interest in the property by virtue of the loan, which is a financial contribution.

This is a very niche and somewhat complicated area of law.  The issue as to intervention should be considered as soon as possible after proceedings have been issued.

How the court deals with intervention in Financial Remedy Proceedings

The court may list a separate Preliminary Hearing to deal with the issue of intervention alone, or it may address it at the Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) Hearing, which is the main hearing where finances are normally resolved. It’s typically the second hearing that takes place within Financial Remedy Proceedings. Sometimes the Court at an FDR will hear from the intervener first, before then going on to deal with the main substantive hearing. Whether or not there is a Preliminary Hearing will depend on proportionality and cost.

Costs

It is important to note that the Court can make Cost Orders against or in favour of an intervener.  This goes against the general rule in family proceedings, particularly at FDR stage, that there should be no order for costs made.

Recent case law

A 2025 case involving a parental financial contribution provides helpful guidance on how the court approaches these disputes.

The case involved a dispute about the beneficial ownership of a property. The elderly mother of the wife had moved in with the wife and husband, and made a significant financial contribution to the property. The mother did not appear on the legal title and there was no Declaration of Trust. The Court, however, found that the wife’s mother had a 10% share of the gross proceeds of sale.  Once the issue of beneficial interest was resolved the Court then went on to consider whether the family home should be sold to satisfy the needs of all parties.

The Court decided that the fact that the intervener had a beneficial interest, and so a right of occupation, was not an absolute bar to an Order for sale. The Judge indicated that the Court had to carry out a balancing exercise considering the extent of the third party’s interest and whether the property was the home of the spouses or the intervener. This included consideration of whether the property had been modified or adapted in some way for the benefit of the third party, and whether by reason of the third party’s age or medical condition, the fact of a sale would be particularly onerous on them. The Judge also noted that where the property was the third party’s home, consideration should be given as to whether they would be re-housed with one of the other parties.

This indicates how the Court can award someone a beneficial interest, namely a third party, upon divorce even if that third party is not on the legal title and has not had the benefit of a Declaration of Trust. This case also shows how difficult it can be for the Court to reach a fair solution for all parties.