By Benjamin Rose, Pupil, Wilberforce Chambers, Hull, Deputy District Judge (Civil & Financial Remedies
The immortal words of Shakespeare, whilst gradually being erased from schools, still resonate throughout the divorce courts of England and Wales; “the course of true love never did run smooth”[1]. Recent headlines about Molly-Mae and Tommy Fury’s reconciliation[2] remind us that relationships can weather storms and emerge stronger. Whilst questions rage in the tabloids and online forums if this is a genuine reconciliation, or simply a PR stunt from a publicity-hungry couple to remain relevant, their journey highlights how reconciliation efforts can succeed, even amid public scrutiny.
The legal framework surrounding reconciliation in England and Wales reflects a complex balance between supporting marriages and providing clear pathways when relationships end. As recent academic analysis has shown, family law must navigate between competing principles: supporting marriage while acknowledging relationship breakdown, encouraging cooperation while protecting vulnerable parties, and balancing certainty with flexibility.
The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) explicitly recognises the value of attempted reconciliation. Under section 6(2), the court can stay or adjourn divorce proceedings if there appears to be a reasonable possibility of reconciliation between the parties. This provision reflects Parliament’s understanding that marriage breakdown isn’t always irretrievable, even when divorce proceedings have begun. However, the traditional requirement for fault-based divorce has often undermined these reconciliation efforts by forcing couples to make allegations of unreasonable behaviour or adultery to obtain a timely divorce. When considering the many examples of celebrity couples, who separate and reconcile multiple times before their final divorce, this mirrors countless couples who navigate the complex territory between separation and reconciliation. English courts have historically taken a pragmatic approach to such situations, as demonstrated in the pre-MCA 1973 case of Lowndes v Lowndes[3]. In this case, the court found that reconciliation attempts, even if not true attempts in good faith, and ultimately unsuccessful, should not prejudice either party’s position in subsequent divorce proceedings. This pragmatic approach aimed to ensure fairness and prevent manipulation of the legal process.
Recent developments, including the shift toward no-fault divorce and the digitalisation of divorce processes, have aimed to remove unnecessary acrimony from proceedings. This reform recognises that requiring allegations of fault can exacerbate tensions and undermine efforts to encourage parties to resolve post-separation arrangements amicably. The courts now take a more sophisticated approach to reconciliation attempts, acknowledging that couples may need time and space to work on their relationships without the pressure of escalating legal hostilities.
The financial implications of reconciliation attempts have also evolved significantly. Courts now demonstrate increasing sophistication in handling situations where couples attempt reconciliation during divorce proceedings. This approach reflects the broader principle in English family law that emphasises discretion over rigid rules in financial matters. As academic analysis has shown, this flexibility allows courts to respond more effectively to the complex realities of modern relationships, where separation and reconciliation may not follow a straightforward pattern.
The Law Commission’s ongoing project[4] on the subject has recognised these complexities. The project acknowledges that the current framework can sometimes inadvertently discourage reconciliation attempts and aims to provide clearer guidance on how financial arrangements should be treated when couples reconcile after initiating divorce proceedings. Many practitioners, in all branches, of the legal profession openly state that the MCA 1973 is no longer fit for purpose[5].
In Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane[6], the House of Lords emphasised the need for flexibility in financial remedies, in light of the current financial pressures on parties; this ought to be especially borne in mind by those who attempt reconciliation. This approach recognises that relationships often follow non-linear paths and that rigid financial rules might discourage genuine attempts at reconciliation. The courts have shown increasing sophistication in balancing the need for certainty with the desire to support couples working toward reconciliation.
Looking forward, English family law continues to develop its approach to reconciliation in response to changing social needs and expectations. A key challenge identified is ensuring access to justice for couples attempting reconciliation. The reduction in legal aid funding has created challenges for couples seeking to navigate the reconciliation process, especially where professional support might help salvage relationships. In all but a handful of cases now, to become eligible for legal aid funding, one party must allege domestic abuse, which is a clear bar to any attempts at reconciliation. The introduction of no-fault divorce in April 2022, through the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 marks a significant shift in how the law approaches relationship breakdown and potential reconciliation. By removing the requirement for fault-based petitions, the law now provides a more supportive environment for couples considering reconciliation, without the added pressure of having to make allegations against each other.
The celebrity reconciliations we observe in the media spotlight serve as public examples of a deeply private journey many couples undertake. While the law must provide clear frameworks for divorce, it should also, as emphasised in Sharland v Sharland[7], remain sensitive to the human realities of marriage and separation. Lady Hale stated at paragraph 17 of her judgment that “It is in the interests of all members of a family that matrimonial claims should be settled by agreement rather than adversarial battle in court.” Whilst accepting that such agreements did not bind the court to ensure fairness.
The legal implications of reconciliation attempts became particularly relevant in Birch v Birch[8], where the Supreme Court addressed the complex interplay between formal agreements, the court’s jurisdiction to vary these, and relationship dynamics. Formal consent orders or other binding contractual documents are clear indicators of intent, however all too often it is left to the parties’ personal interactions to assess what may be deemed a reconciliation attempt. The courts’ approach to this balance is evident in HK v SS[9], which reinforced the principle that attempts to rekindle a relationship have always been permissible, from pre-MCA 1973 to the present, and the guidance given by HHJ Simmonds in how Courts are to approach their discretion under FPR 7.19(6)(b), effectively disregarding attempts of up to 2 years in length when deciding if parties remain entitled to a final order[10].
As we continue to witness couples navigate the complex path of reconciliation, English family law strives to maintain a delicate balance: supporting those who wish to save their marriages while protecting the interests of those who ultimately choose to separate. This balance remains crucial as society’s understanding of relationships continues to evolve, and the legal framework must adapt to support the diverse ways in which modern couples approach reconciliation and relationship healing. The ongoing evolution of family law reflects a deeper understanding that relationship breakdown and reconciliation are rarely linear processes. The legal system’s challenge is to provide both the structure needed for certainty and the flexibility required to support genuine attempts at reconciliation. As access to justice concerns continue to shape the landscape of family law, ensuring that couples have the support they need to explore reconciliation remains a vital consideration in the development of legal policy and practice.
Benjamin Rose, Pupil, Wilberforce Chambers, Hull, Deputy District Judge (Civil & Financial Remedies
[1] A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act 1, Scene 1
[2] Molly-Mae on ‘kiss’ with Tommy: ‘It’s complicated’, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czx8rz2y7dxo
[3] [1950] 2 All ER 603
[4] Financial Remedies on Divorce, published on 18 December 2024, https://cloud-platform-e218f50a4812967ba1215eaecede923f.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/sites/30/2024/12/Financial-Remedies-scoping-report-Dec-24-1.pdf
[5] https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice-points/financial-remedies-one-size-does-not-fit-all/5122052.article accessed 22.1.25
[6] [2006] UKHL 24
[7] [2015] UKSC 60
[8] [2017] UKSC 53
[9] [2025] EWFC 5 (B)
[10] supra at [29]
