In 2026, the issue of when a divorce should be made final remains a live and often high-stakes question for divorce solicitors across the UK. While no-fault divorce has now been in place for several years, the underlying tension between marital status and unresolved finances has not disappeared. In some respects, it has become more pronounced.
At the centre of this issue is the risk faced by the financially weaker spouse if a final divorce order is granted before a financial order is approved by the court. Despite cultural and procedural changes introduced by the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 continues to shape how and when the court will intervene to delay finality.
The Legal Framework, Old Law Still Doing New Work
Although the terminology has shifted from decree nisi and decree absolute to conditional and final order, the statutory provisions governing delay are largely unchanged. Sections 9 and 10 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 remain the key mechanisms available to parties seeking to prevent a divorce being finalised prematurely.
From a 2026 perspective, this continuity is striking. Parliament modernised the divorce process, but deliberately left intact the court’s cautious approach to interfering with final orders. The result is a system that still prioritises certainty of marital status, sometimes at the expense of financial security.
When The Applicant Delays, Discretion Is Narrow
Where the divorce applicant applies for a final order and the respondent seeks to delay it, the court’s discretion remains tightly constrained. The principles set out in cases such as Dart v Dart and Thakkar v Thakkar, although decided long before no-fault divorce, continue to be applied.
The court starts from the assumption that the applicant is entitled to a final order once the statutory waiting period has expired. A delay will only be granted where exceptional or special circumstances are shown. In practice, this remains a high bar. The potential loss of pension rights or death-in-service benefits, while serious, is not always enough on its own.
For divorce solicitors advising financially weaker respondents, this creates a familiar problem. The law recognises the risk, but does not easily prevent it unless the facts are extreme.
Section 10: A Stronger Tool For Respondents
By contrast, where the respondent actively applies to delay the final order under section 10 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, the statutory test is far more protective.
In these cases, the court must be satisfied that either no financial provision is required, or that any proposed provision is reasonable and fair, or the best that can be achieved in the circumstances. Crucially, the court must also consider the respondent’s financial position if the applicant were to die first, taking into account pensions, insurance and survivorship benefits.
From today’s vantage point, section 10 remains one of the most effective tools available to protect a financially vulnerable spouse before a financial order is made. Its importance has not diminished with no-fault divorce. If anything, the speed of modern divorce proceedings makes early advice even more critical.
Undertakings And Financial Realism
The court can still allow a final order to be granted if the applicant provides a satisfactory undertaking to make financial provision. Case law such as Grigson v Grigson continues to guide what “satisfactory” means.
In 2026, the message for practitioners is unchanged: vague assurances are not enough. The undertaking must contain a formulated proposal as to the nature and scale of financial provision, even if the finer detail is left for later negotiation. Without this, the court is unlikely to be persuaded that the respondent’s position is adequately protected.
Procedure Matters, Timing Matters More
Procedurally, section 10 applications remain tightly timed. They must be issued after the conditional order but before the applicant becomes entitled to apply for a final order. Once issued, the application stays the divorce proceedings and is treated as a financial remedy application, bringing it within the Part 9 framework.
From a practical standpoint, this is where experienced divorce solicitors add the most value. Missing the window can leave a client exposed, with limited scope to reverse the consequences.
An Unresolved Inconsistency
Viewed from 2026, one unresolved issue continues to attract quiet criticism. The court’s approach differs sharply depending on whether the applicant or the respondent seeks to delay finality. Applicants face a relatively generous statutory shield under section 10. Respondents opposing an applicant’s final order under section 9 face a much steeper uphill struggle.
So far, there has been no appellate reconsideration of this imbalance in the post-2022 legal landscape. Whether future reform or judicial clarification will address it remains to be seen.
The Bigger Picture
What this area of law demonstrates, even now, is that divorce is not just about ending a marriage. It is about managing financial risk. Until a financial order is sealed, finalising a divorce can have irreversible consequences.
In 2026, the lesson is clear. No-fault divorce has simplified the route out of marriage, but it has not removed the need for careful legal strategy. Timing, undertakings and the intelligent use of section 10 remain essential tools for protecting clients’ financial futures.
Michael Caine