When a marriage comes to an end, there is often a great deal to navigate: emotional upheaval, arrangements for children, financial decisions and the legal process of divorce.

For Jewish couples, there is another important consideration: the Get, the Jewish religious divorce.

One principle should be clear from the outset: where a marriage has irretrievably broken down and reconciliation is not anticipated, the Get process should begin without unnecessary delay. The Get should be given without condition, and there is no general requirement to wait until the civil divorce reaches the conditional order stage before taking steps towards the religious divorce.

What is a Get?

A Get is the Jewish religious document that dissolves a marriage under Jewish law. It is distinct from the civil divorce granted by the courts in England and Wales.

The two processes serve different purposes. A civil divorce legally ends the marriage under English law, while a Get brings the marriage to an end under Jewish law.

For those who wish to remarry within the Orthodox Jewish community, obtaining a Get is particularly important. Without it, a person may face significant restrictions on their ability to remarry within that community.

Do you have to wait for the conditional order?

No. You do not need to wait for the conditional order before starting the Get process.

The civil divorce process in England and Wales involves a waiting period before an application can be made for a conditional order. Under the current system, this is normally 20 weeks from the date the divorce application is issued.

But there is no reason to treat that timetable as a barrier to beginning the religious divorce process.

The Beth Din (Jewish religious court) will often ask for civil divorce proceedings to have been started. It will also require the parties to be living separately and no longer under the same roof. These are important requirements under Jewish law and the procedures followed by the Beth Din.

It is therefore sensible to contact the relevant Beth Din early to understand what is required and when the different steps can be taken.

Why might the Beth Din wait until the civil divorce is finalised?

There is an important distinction between beginning the Get process and the point at which the Get is released and becomes effective.

Some Battei Din (the plural of Beth Din) will arrange for the Get to be given by the husband and accepted by the wife but hold the release of the paperwork itself, until the civil divorce has been finalised.

The intention is to avoid a situation in which someone is divorced under Jewish law and remarries within the Jewish community while still legally married to someone else under civil law. This can create significant legal complications.

The arrangements vary between Battei Din, so it is important to establish the position with the particular Beth Din involved.

However, this does not mean that the Get process should be left until the end of the civil divorce. Starting early allows the necessary requirements to be addressed in good time and avoids unnecessary delay.

The key distinction is that the Get process can begin before the conditional order, even where the particular Beth Din will not release the Get until the civil divorce has been finalised.

Why should the Get be given without condition or delay?

When a relationship ends, it can be tempting to link different aspects of the separation together. A person may feel that they should not cooperate with the Get until financial arrangements have been agreed, arrangements for the children have been resolved or the civil divorce has reached a particular stage.

But these are separate issues and should be treated as such.

The Get should not be used as a bargaining tool in financial negotiations, disputes about children or disagreements about the civil divorce.

There are good reasons for this approach.

1. It allows both people to move forward.

Separation is already difficult. Delaying the religious divorce unnecessarily can prolong uncertainty and make it harder for both parties to rebuild their lives.

2. It avoids unnecessary additional distress.

The end of a marriage can be emotionally painful without the added uncertainty of not knowing when the religious divorce will take place.

3. It keeps separate issues separate.

Financial arrangements and decisions about children can be complex and may take time to resolve. The Get should not be held back as a means of putting pressure on the other person to agree to particular financial or parenting arrangements.

4. It respects the significance of the Get.

The Get is not simply another item on a divorce checklist. It has profound religious and personal significance. Treating it as a bargaining chip risks adding to the distress of an already difficult situation.

What if the financial settlement has not been agreed?

This is an important point.

Financial negotiations can take months, and sometimes longer. There may be disagreements about the family home, pensions, maintenance, businesses or other assets. Arrangements for children may also take time to settle.

But the fact that these issues remain unresolved does not, in itself, mean that the Get process should be delayed.

The religious divorce and the financial settlement are distinct processes. Giving or receiving a Get does not, in itself, mean that either party has agreed to a particular division of assets or given up their legal rights in relation to finances or children.

If you have concerns about the consequences of the civil divorce or an outstanding financial settlement, take independent legal advice. Those concerns should be addressed directly rather than by making the Get conditional on a financial or other agreement.

What if one person refuses to cooperate?

Unfortunately, a Get can sometimes become a source of conflict following separation.

Where one spouse refuses to give or receive a Get, the other may be left unable to move forward with their religious life in the way they wish. In some circumstances, refusal can become a means of exerting pressure or maintaining control after the relationship has ended.

If this happens, support is available. The relevant Beth Din can explain the religious process and the steps it may take where someone refuses to cooperate. We can also advise on the civil options that may be available.

In England and Wales, there are legal provisions that can, in appropriate circumstances, allow the court to delay the final civil divorce order until steps have been taken to dissolve the marriage according to the relevant religious rites. This is a separate issue from the conditional order and is not a reason to postpone starting the Get process.

Anyone experiencing pressure, intimidation or abuse should seek appropriate specialist support and legal advice.

A more constructive approach to Jewish divorce

Divorce is rarely straightforward. Even where both people accept that the marriage has ended, there may be difficult conversations about children, money, housing and the future.

A constructive approach means recognising that not every issue needs to be resolved at the same time.

The Get should be approached as an important and distinct step in bringing the marriage to an end under Jewish law. It should not be made conditional on the outcome of financial negotiations or delayed simply because the civil divorce has not yet reached the conditional order stage.

There may be practical reasons why the Get cannot be completed immediately, including the Beth Din’s requirements and the arrangements for the civil divorce to be finalised. These should be understood and addressed at an early stage, rather than used as a reason to put off starting the process.

If a marriage has irretrievably broken down, the Get process should begin without unnecessary delay. The Get should be given without condition, and it should not be used as leverage in other disputes. There is no general need to wait for the conditional order before taking the preliminary steps.

At a time when both people need the opportunity to move forward, keeping the religious divorce separate from other disputes can help avoid unnecessary conflict and distress.

London Beth Din — for information about the Get process and its requirements.

GOV.UK: Apply for a conditional order — for the civil divorce timetable.

Jewish Women’s Aid — for specialist support where domestic abuse or coercive control is a concern.

The Government has launched a major consultation proposing some of the most significant changes to family law in England and Wales for over 50 years. If implemented, the reforms would reshape how finances are dealt with on divorce, introduce new rights for many cohabiting couples, and strengthen inheritance protections for unmarried partners.

For family lawyers and separating couples alike, these proposals could mark a fundamental shift in the legal landscape.

Why Reform Is Being Considered

Family life has changed dramatically over the last few decades, but the law has not always kept pace.

Today, more than 3.5 million couples in England and Wales live together without being married or in a civil partnership—more than double the number three decades ago. Yet many people remain unaware that cohabiting couples do not enjoy the same legal protections as married couples when relationships break down. The Government believes this gap can leave many families financially vulnerable, particularly women, children and victims of domestic or economic abuse.

At the same time, the law governing financial claims on divorce is largely based on legislation dating back to 1973, with many key principles having developed through case law rather than clear statutory rules.

The consultation therefore seeks to create a system that is clearer, fairer and easier for families to understand.

Current Law on Divorce

The law governing financial settlements on divorce in England and Wales is largely based on the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. While the legislation provides a framework, much of the law has been developed through decades of court decisions. This means judges have a wide discretion when deciding how assets, income, pensions and property should be divided between separating spouses.

The court’s first consideration is the welfare of any children under the age of 18. It must then consider a range of factors including the parties’ income, earning capacity, financial needs, standard of living during the marriage, ages, health, contributions and conduct in exceptional cases.

While this flexibility allows the court to achieve fairness in individual cases, it can also create uncertainty. Many divorcing couples find it difficult to predict what a court might decide, which can increase legal costs and make settlement negotiations more challenging.

Proposals for Reform on Divorce

The Government’s consultation proposes placing key principles developed by the courts into legislation, creating a clearer and more predictable framework for financial settlements.

The law would distinguish more clearly between “matrimonial property”, acquired during the marriage, and “non-matrimonial property”, such as assets owned before the marriage or received by inheritance or gift.

One of the central proposals is that matrimonial assets should generally be shared equally between spouses, and if there are insufficient resources to share then a departure may be required to meet the parties needs, which would be assessed in a three stage test:

Stage 1: Children’s needs come first

Reflecting current law, the court should consider the welfare of a child of the family and

consider their needs first.

Stage 2: Consider divorcing couples’ capital and income needs, including their

housing and pension needs

After considering the needs of any child of the family, the parties housing, income and pension needs, as far as resources allow. These needs may be linked to a child’s needs.

Stage 3: Consider discretionary needs

After completing Stage 2, where resources permit, the court would consider discretionary

needs. We consider these needs to be lifestyle ‘luxuries’. For example, luxury items could

include expensive cars or designer items including clothing or accessories. Stage 2 and 3 would need to be clearly distinguished.

The aim is to create greater certainty for separating couples, reduce disputes and encourage earlier settlement. The government’s view is that the needs of the parties should be met in such a way as to enable transition to independence for both parties, as far as resources allow.

Current Law on Nuptial Agreements

Pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements have become increasingly common, particularly where one or both parties bring significant assets into a marriage. However, unlike in some other countries, such agreements are not automatically binding in England and Wales.

Since the Supreme Court decision in Radmacher v Granatino, the courts will generally uphold a nuptial agreement where both parties entered into it freely, understood its implications and the outcome is fair. However, the court retains the ultimate power to depart from the agreement if necessary, particularly where it would leave one party or any children in financial hardship.

As a result, while nuptial agreements carry significant weight, they cannot currently guarantee a particular outcome.

Proposals for Qualifying Nuptial Agreements

The consultation proposes the introduction of legally binding “Qualifying Nuptial Agreements”. These agreements would allow couples greater autonomy to decide how their assets should be dealt with if their relationship ends.

To qualify, agreements would need to satisfy a number of safeguards designed to ensure fairness and informed decision-making. The safeguards proposed are as follows:-

• Contract Validity: the agreement must be a valid contract without, for example,

undue influence or misrepresentation.

• Execution as Deed: the agreement must have been made by deed and must

contain a statement signed by both parties that they understand the agreement is a

qualifying nuptial agreement that will partially remove the court’s discretion to make

financial orders.

• 28-Day Period: the agreement must not have been made within the 28 days

immediately before the wedding or the celebration of civil partnership.

• Material Financial Disclosure: each party to the agreement must have received, at

the time of making of it, disclosure of material information about the other party’s

financial situation.

• Independent Legal Advice: independent legal advice for each party signing the

nuptial agreement, to ensure each understands the legal effect and consequences of

the agreement.

• It should not be possible for a party to waive their rights to disclosure and legal advice.
• Any variation of an agreement must meet the requirements listed above.

While parties would be able to contract out of the sharing principle, they would not be able to contract out of meeting each other’s basic financial needs or the needs of any children.

If implemented, these reforms could provide greater certainty for couples, reduce litigation and align England and Wales more closely with jurisdictions where nuptial agreements are already fully enforceable.

Current Law on Cohabitation

A common misconception is that couples who live together acquire the status of “common law husband” or “common law wife”. In reality, no such legal status exists.

Unlike married couples, cohabitants cannot make financial claims against one another simply because their relationship has ended. Property disputes are usually determined by complex trust and property law principles, often leading to uncertainty and costly litigation. Many financially vulnerable partners can be left without adequate protection despite years of contribution to the relationship or family life.  Parents can make claims against another parent as the carer of a child but their rights are attached to those of the child and are therefore time limited.

Proposals for Reform

The Government is consulting on introducing a new legal framework for certain cohabiting couples.

The proposed scheme would apply to couples who can demonstrate that they are in a romantic, committed, long term interdependent relationship.  The proposals consider this to be couples who have lived together for at least three years, or who have a child together, unless they actively choose to opt out. The proposals stop short of giving cohabitants the same rights as married couples. Instead, they focus on addressing financial hardship and unmet needs arising from the relationship.  The proposals also suggest a two year time limit for making a financial claim on the other party following a relationship breakdown.

The needs of the party would be the court’s guiding principle and this will prioritise fair outcomes for children. Potential remedies could include lump sum payments, property adjustment orders and, in limited circumstances, financial support. The proposed framework seeks to balance personal autonomy with protection for vulnerable partners and children.

While the government proposes cohabitants have access to the same remedies as

divorcing couples, this does not mean there would be equivalent financial outcomes to

divorce. The court would not apply the sharing principle.

Cohabitants can also agree to opt out of these rights.  By making the scheme opt out rather than opt in, it would protect the financially weaker party.

The consultation also includes proposals to strengthen inheritance rights for cohabiting partners where one partner dies without leaving a valid will.

How the Law Currently Considers Domestic Abuse

Domestic abuse can already be relevant in financial remedy proceedings, but only in limited circumstances. Historically, the courts have been reluctant to take conduct into account unless it would be inequitable to disregard it.

As a result, even serious abusive behaviour may have little impact on the financial outcome of a divorce unless it has caused a clear and significant financial consequence. While courts increasingly recognise coercive and controlling behaviour, many victims feel that the current law does not adequately reflect the economic impact of abuse.

Economic abuse, which may include controlling access to money, preventing a partner from working, accumulating debt in their name or restricting financial independence, is now recognised within the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. However, its role within financial remedy proceedings remains limited.

Proposals for Domestic Abuse

The consultation seeks views on whether domestic abuse should play a greater role in financial settlements following divorce or dissolution.

In particular, the Government is considering how courts should take account of coercive control, economic abuse and other forms of domestic abuse when assessing financial outcomes. The consultation recognises that abuse can have long-lasting effects on a victim’s earning capacity, financial security and ability to rebuild their life after separation.

The proposals do not yet set out a definitive new framework but acknowledge growing concerns that the existing law may not adequately address the financial consequences of abuse. Any reforms could represent a significant shift in how the family courts approach fairness in financial remedy cases.

Need advice about divorce, financial settlements or cohabitation disputes?

At Rachel Jaysan Family Law, we help clients navigate complex family law issues with clear, practical and strategic advice. If you would like to discuss your circumstances, please get in touch for a confidential consultation.

Key statistics and proposals in this article are drawn from the Ministry of Justice consultation A Fairer End to Relationships: A Consultation on Reforming Financial Remedies on Divorce and Strengthening Protections for Cohabitants at the End of their Relationship (June 2026). 

January is often seen as the busiest month for family lawyers, as time spent together over the holidays leads some couples to conclude their marriage has run its course. Yet Christmas and New Year are just as often a time of romance, with many couples choosing this moment to commit to marriage.

There has been a clear cultural shift over recent decades with couple marrying in their 30’s being the most common age to wed.  At this age it is now much more likely that both parties will have built up wealth prior to marriage.  As such, nuptial agreements are no longer the preserve of celebrities or the very wealthy. Increasingly, couples across England and Wales are choosing to make clear, proactive decisions about their financial futures, before or after marriage, through professionally drafted nuptial agreements. At the same time, innovative processes like One Couple. One Lawyer are transforming how those agreements are negotiated — making them sensible, respectful, and collaborative rather than adversarial.

What is a Nuptial Agreement in English Law?

A nuptial agreement (whether entered into before marriage — a “pre-nup” — or during marriage — a “post-nup”) is a written contract that sets out how a couple intends their financial assets and responsibilities to be dealt with if the relationship later breaks down.

Under English law:

• Nuptial agreements are not automatically legally binding in the same way as other contracts.
• But since the Supreme Court’s landmark Radmacher v Granatino decision, courts will give effect to a nuptial agreement when certain conditions are met — voluntarily entered into, with full disclosure and fair terms — unless it would be unfair to uphold it at the time of divorce.

The practical outcome is that a well-negotiated and properly documented agreement will carry significant weight in court and often becomes the framework the court adopts when approving a financial settlement on divorce.

Why Couples Choose Nuptial Agreements

People enter into nuptial agreements for many reasons, including:

• Protecting assets brought into the marriage (e.g., family property, business interests).
• Ensuring inheritance provision for children from prior relationships.
• Clarifying rights and responsibilities early, helping minimises emotional and financial stress if the relationship later ends.
• Encouraging candid financial discussions, which can strengthen mutual understanding and trust.

Key Legal Safeguards that Make Them Work

For a nuptial agreement to carry weight in court, it should satisfy core safeguards:

1. Free and informed consent: Both parties enter into the agreement voluntarily, with time to consider the terms.
2. Full financial disclosure: Each person must know the full picture — assets, liabilities and future prospects.
3. Fairness and reasonableness: The agreement must not leave one party unable to meet their reasonable needs.
4. Independent advice: Both parties should have the opportunity to take independent legal advice (even where a joint process is used).

The Problem with Traditional Positional Negotiation

Under the traditional model, each person instructs their own solicitor from the outset. Even where a couple is broadly aligned, the structure itself creates separation:

• advice is given individually and privately;
• proposals are exchanged through letters or emails;
• language can become defensive and strategic;
• costs increase with every round of correspondence.

This approach can be appropriate where there is mistrust, imbalance or conflict. Although the pertinent question in these scenarios is whether marriage is an appropriate step.  But for couples who are fundamentally seeking agreement, it often creates friction where none previously existed.

Positional negotiations can:

• harden attitudes unnecessarily;
• delay agreement;
• inflate legal costs disproportionately to complexity; and
• undermine the collaborative intent behind the agreement.

What One Couple. One Lawyer Does Differently

One Couple. One Lawyer starts from a different premise:
that many couples want clarity, not confrontation.

Traditionally, each person instructs their own solicitor to negotiate a nuptial agreement. One Couple. One Lawyer takes a different approach: one accredited family lawyer works with both partners together to guide the process — explaining the law, facilitating discussions, and drafting terms that reflect both parties’ intentions.

This model works when:

• both partners are willing to engage openly and respectfully;
• there is a commitment to full financial disclosure together; and
• neither party is under coercion or significant imbalance of power.

Why This Works Especially Well for Nuptial Agreements

Nuptial agreements are not about winning or losing. They are about:

• managing risk;
• protecting pre-existing assets or family wealth;
• planning for future change; and
• avoiding uncertainty if a relationship later ends.

One Couple. One Lawyer is particularly well suited to this because it:

• keeps discussions forward-looking rather than retrospective;
• allows both partners to hear the same advice at the same time;
• reduces misunderstandings about what the law does — and does not — allow;
• encourages practical, proportionate decision-making.

Importantly, it also creates a clear evidential trail that the agreement was entered into knowingly, voluntarily and with proper understanding — all factors that increase the likelihood of it being upheld.

But What About Separate Legal Advice?

Separate advice remains essential.  The key difference is when and how that advice is taken.

Under One Couple. One Lawyer:

• joint work is done first, efficiently and transparently;
• the structure and rationale of the agreement are clear;
• The agreement is drafted together to ensure the terms work for both parties equally.

Instead of two lawyers negotiating from scratch, each adviser is reviewing a near-final document/ set of proposals and advising on its implications.

This dramatically reduces:

• duplication of work;
• unnecessary correspondence; and
• the scope for positional escalation.

Why This Is Still Much Cheaper Overall

Clients are often surprised to learn that even with separate advice, One Couple. One Lawyer usually costs significantly less than the traditional method.

That is because:

• there is only one lawyer doing the core drafting and legal analysis;
• meetings are joint rather than duplicated;
• negotiations happen in real time, not by letter;
• disputes are addressed early, not allowed to fester.

Traditional positional negotiation often generates cost through process rather than substance. One Couple. One Lawyer strips that away.

The result is not “cheap law” — it is proportionate law.

The Bottom Line

A well-drafted nuptial agreement is one that is:

• understood by both parties;
• entered into freely;
• fair in outcome; and
• proportionate in cost.

For the right couples, One Couple. One Lawyer delivers exactly that — with the option of separate advice where needed, and without the financial and emotional drain of traditional positional methods.

Please contact Rachel Jaysan at rachel@rachel.jaysan.co.uk or 020 8958 2073 or book an initial exploratory chat using the following link to discuss your options

www.racheljaysan.co.uk