Will the Court Punish My Ex for Their Behaviour?

This is one of the most common questions we hear from people going through divorce. Your ex lied to you, cheated on you, controlled you, or was simply impossible to live with, and you want to know if the court will reflect that when it decides how the money and property are split.

For most people, the honest answer is no.

Needs come first

In the majority of divorces, there isn't enough money to go around once both parties' basic needs are considered: somewhere to live, enough income to get by, provision for any children. When assets are modest, the court's focus is on making sure both people can manage, not on working out who was more at fault.

This means that even where one person clearly behaved badly during the marriage, the court will usually still divide the assets in a way that meets both parties' needs. If there isn't a surplus once needs are met, there's nothing left to reallocate as a penalty. The behaviour doesn't disappear from the story, but it typically has no effect on the numbers.

Why the law works this way

The relevant law, section 25(2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, does allow a court to take conduct into account, but only where it would be "inequitable to disregard" it. The courts have set this bar deliberately high. Judges have repeatedly said that conduct is not there to punish someone for being a bad spouse. It is only reflected in rare cases, and even then, usually only where the conduct had an identifiable effect on the finances, not simply on how the marriage felt to live through.

A useful case here is OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, where the court set out the situations where conduct can matter:

• Serious personal misconduct against the other party, where it has caused financial harm
• Recklessly wasting or hiding assets that should have been shared
• Litigation misconduct, such as refusing to engage properly with proceedings, which is usually dealt with by ordering that person to pay costs, rather than changing the division of assets
• Drawing conclusions about hidden money from someone's failure to give honest financial disclosure

Even in that case, which involved a business worth millions and clear evidence of hidden assets, the court rejected the idea of a two thirds/one third split to punish the husband. The behaviour was reflected narrowly, through a discount on one specific asset and a costs order, not a wholesale rebalancing of the settlement.

When conduct might matter more

There is a developing area of law around cases involving serious coercive control or domestic abuse, where courts have started to accept that the financial impact of that behaviour may be hard to measure precisely but can still be considered. A recent example is LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473, where the court found that the wife's conduct — including what the judge described as fraud and abusive behaviour — contributed to her receiving a reduced share of significant matrimonial assets.

That case involved assets worth several million pounds, with plenty of surplus once needs were met. It does not tell us how a court would approach the same behaviour in a case where there simply isn't the money to make that kind of adjustment. In lower asset cases, needs will almost always take priority over any conduct argument, however serious the behaviour was.

What this means for you

If your case involves modest assets and your priority is housing and managing day to day, it is worth being realistic about what raising your ex's conduct is likely to achieve financially. It may still matter for other reasons, such as child arrangements or your own wellbeing, but it's unlikely to change how the court divides what's available.

Where money is tight, it is usually more productive to focus your energy on clearly setting out both parties' needs: housing costs, income, outgoings, and anything specific to your children. That is what the court will be weighing up, and it's where your evidence will make the most difference.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case depends on its own facts, and you should seek independent advice or support before relying on anything above in your own proceedings.