Emotional husband fails to have financial order set aside

When financial settlements on divorce are agreed they will be incorporated into a consent court order, usually simply referred to as a ‘consent order’.

Consent orders are intended to be final. After all, if both of the parties agreed to the terms of the order, then neither should normally have any reason to question the terms of the order.

But in a recent case in the Family Court at Birmingham the husband sought to argue that a consent order should be set aside, because his capacity to consent had been compromised due to his mental state at the time he agreed to the settlement.

The background to the case was that the parties separated in 2023, since when the wife and two children have been living in the former matrimonial home. The children have no contact with their father.

Divorce proceedings took place and, at a hearing in April 2025, a consent order was made, under which the matrimonial home would be sold, various liabilities paid off, and the balance paid to the wife, for her to use to rehouse herself and the children.

The husband then made his application to have the consent order set aside, claiming that his consent had been compromised, and that the terms of the order were unfair.

The husband maintained, amongst other things, that he suffered from poor mental health, and was very emotional during the hearing, at which he had not been represented.

The outcome of the husband’s application hinged upon a transcript of the hearing. That showed that he had clearly indicated to the court that he did not want anything, not even the sum of £5,000 that the wife had offered.

The transcript indicated that the husband was indeed emotional. The judge had therefore asked him if he wanted five minutes or so to think about matters. He declined, saying that the wife could have it all.

The judge subsequently reiterated that she was happy to give the husband time to think about matters, so that he did not feel pressurised. The husband responded that he was not pressurised, he just wanted the children to have somewhere to live, and he did not want the money.

District Judge Parker, hearing the husband’s application, found that whilst it was clear that the husband was emotional, “as the hearing progressed, his views remained steadfast and became increasingly more moderated in so far as his initial emotional dysregulation was concerned.” The husband quite clearly considered the importance of the children having a home.

District Judge Parker was satisfied that the judge at the first hearing gave the husband ample opportunity to consider matters, and had: “behaved impeccably with regard to the conduct of the hearing such that at the end of the case, it was clear that the husband’s mind was made up, he was resolute and the initial emotions that were present at the outset of the hearing had significantly reduced.”

District Judge Parker concluded: “Of course, I bear in mind that all court hearings create anxiety and emotions, but it does not necessarily therefore automatically follow that litigants have a right to automatically seek to have an order set aside because upon reflection and in the ‘cold light of day’ they have cause to reconsider matters.”

Accordingly, the husband’s application was dismissed.

You can read the full judgment in the case here.

*          *          *

Family Law Cafe gives you the best strategy to achieve the right outcome for you and your family and keeps them informed and in control 24/7 through a unique and secure online portal. Family Law Cafe is your start-point for getting matters sorted with strategy, support and security.

Image: Arthur Bargan / Shutterstock.com