The treatment of conduct in financial remedy proceedings has received notable judicial attention in recent months. While the authorities have long emphasised a high threshold for conduct to be taken into account (as discussed in my previous article: Is domestic abuse included in the division of finances on divorce?), recent judgments by Cusworth J (including in LP v MP) suggest that change really could be on the horizon, leaning towards a more flexible approach which truly recognises the impact of abuse in the financial context.
In LP v MP the court was faced with extraordinary conduct by the wife during a marriage of approximately 11–12 years. She subjected the husband to coercive control, serious physical and emotional abuse, fabricated allegations of rape and sexual abuse and created an elaborate false persona as a High Court judge. She controlled the husband’s life through a combination of abuse, lies and manipulation.
Two properties were held jointly, but assets of approximately £22m were generated by the husband pre‑marriage.
Cusworth J acknowledged that the sharing of matrimonial property should normally be on an equal basis but held that this was a case in which equality should be departed from, in light of the wife’s “deplorable conduct” and lack of financial contribution. He therefore reduced the wife’s sharing claim by 40%, applying conduct as the “glass” through which fairness should be assessed. He also declined to make any needs-based top‑up to the wife’s award, on the basis that her needs should not be assessed generously in light of her conduct and stated that “whilst the standard of living in the marriage has been significantly higher, I am satisfied that in all of the circumstances the wife is not entitled to be maintained at the marital standard any further”.
The wife therefore received just 60% of her notional half share of the parties’ matrimonial assets. She retained the assets in her sole name and the husband was ordered to pay her a lump sum of £750,000. He retained the rest of his assets.
The full case can be read here: LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473 (22 November 2025)
Challenging the “Gross and Obvious” Test
The long-established position, restated by Peel J in N v J (2024), is that abusive conduct should only be taken into account where it is “gross and obvious” and where it has a direct financial consequence.
However, these recent decisions are now questioning whether that threshold remains correct. In the case of LP v MP, the wife’s conduct clearly met the threshold of gross and obvious, but the direct financial impact was somewhat less obvious.
Just a short time before delivering his judgment in LP v MP, Cusworth J in Loh v Loh‑Gronager commented that s.25(2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1975 requires consideration of conduct where it would be “inequitable to disregard it” – in other words, if fairness requires it, i.e. it does not necessarily have to be “gross and obvious”. Then in LP v MP he stated that there is a risk of unfairness to survivors of domestic abuse if the absence of readily quantifiable financial loss prevents the courts from considering conduct, as such behaviour can have potentially far reaching consequences.
This is a clear shift in approach which emphasises that fairness, not compensable loss, should be the determining factor.
Where does this leave us?
We currently have two High Court judges expressing differing views. Peel J in N v J (2024) emphasised that there remains a high threshold for conduct to be taken into account together with the requirement for there to be a financial impact. Cusworth J, by contrast, suggests that fairness may require consideration of conduct even without financial loss.
This creates opportunity but also uncertainty. It is likely that a case of this nature will need to reach the higher courts before the position is clarified for practitioners. Each case will continue to turn on its own facts.
Until then, while fairness remains the guiding principle, the precise role of conduct and particularly the extent to which abusive behaviour can and should influence outcomes, will continue to be an issue that financial remedy practitioners must navigate.