The ES1 Form — "Issues in the Case" Section Explained

This asks whether either person is saying they contributed so much more than the other that the court should take that into account when dividing the finances.

In most family cases, the court treats financial and non-financial contributions as equally valuable — earning money, caring for children, homemaking, supporting the family, or enabling the other person to work.

This question is asking: "Are you saying your contribution was so exceptional, or so much greater, that it should affect the outcome?"

This is not simply "I paid more bills" or "I earned more." To be relevant to the court it usually has to be something considerably more significant than that — for example, a substantial pre-marital asset, a business built almost entirely by one person, or an inheritance that was kept entirely separate throughout the marriage.

This asks whether either person is saying the other behaved so badly that the court should take that behaviour into account when deciding the financial outcome.

Conduct in financial remedy cases has a high threshold. The court does not usually consider general bad behaviour, arguments, affairs, poor parenting, emotional hurt, or who caused the marriage to break down.

Conduct is only usually relevant if it would be inequitable for the court to ignore it — for example: serious financial misconduct, deliberately hiding or dissipating assets, or exceptionally serious behaviour with a direct financial impact.

So the question is: "Are you asking the court to treat the other person's behaviour as a factor in the financial division?" If you are not making that specific argument, the answer is usually No.

This asks whether either person is saying the other has not properly disclosed their capital assets.

Capital means things like savings, bank balances, property, investments, shares, business interests, pensions, valuable vehicles, cryptocurrency, or other assets of value.

Non-disclosure means you believe something has been left out, undervalued, hidden, transferred away, or not properly evidenced in the other party's Form E or supporting documents.

So the question is: "Are you saying the other person has not been honest or complete about their assets?" If you have no concerns about their asset disclosure, the answer is No.

This asks whether either person is saying the other has not properly disclosed their income or earning resources.

Income resources means wages, self-employed income, rental income, benefits, dividends, business drawings, cash income, bonuses, overtime, regular payments from others, or any other source of money coming in.

So the question is: "Are you saying the other person has not been open about what they earn or receive?"

This is separate from capital disclosure. Someone might fully disclose their income but not their assets — or vice versa. Each question addresses a different type of financial transparency.

This asks whether both sides agree about what each person reasonably needs for housing after separation.

This is not simply about who lives where right now. It is about whether both parties agree what housing each person needs going forward — how many bedrooms, location, affordability, mortgage capacity, and whether one person needs a greater share of available resources to meet housing needs.

Where children are involved, the housing needs of the parent they primarily live with becomes a central issue in this question.

So the question is: "Do you both agree what each person needs in order to be suitably housed?" If you disagree about this — for example, you believe the other person's housing needs are overstated — the answer is No.

This asks whether both sides agree about what each person needs to live on each month or each year.

This includes ordinary living costs such as food, utilities, rent or mortgage, travel, children's costs, debts, insurance, and other reasonable expenses. It may also be relevant to whether maintenance is needed, whether one person can meet their own needs from their own income, and whether there is a shortfall to be addressed.

So the question is: "Do you both agree what each person reasonably needs to live on?" If you dispute the other person's stated outgoings or believe they can meet their own needs without support, the answer is likely No.

This asks whether either person is asking for more than half of the matrimonial assets.

The starting point in many cases — particularly longer marriages — is often equality, but the final outcome depends on needs, children, income, housing, pensions, resources, and all the section 25 factors. A departure from equality simply means one person is saying the assets should not be divided 50/50.

Common reasons might include: significant housing needs, children's arrangements, income disparity, disability, earning capacity differences, or the fact that the available assets are not sufficient for both parties to rehouse equally.

So the question is: "Are you asking the court for an outcome that is not equal — and if so, on what basis?" If you believe an equal split is the right outcome, you would say No.

ADR stands for Alternative Dispute Resolution. This asks whether you are willing to try to resolve the case without the court having to decide everything at a final hearing.

This could include mediation, solicitor negotiation, private FDR, arbitration, round-table discussions, or other settlement options.

Saying Yes does not mean you agree with the other person's position. It simply means you are open to exploring a non-court route if it is safe, appropriate, and realistic.

Courts view engagement with ADR positively. Refusing to consider it without good reason can reflect poorly on a party and — in some circumstances — affect how costs are dealt with.

So the question is: "Are you willing to consider other ways of settling this, rather than only fighting it through to a final hearing?"