In family law, the concept of conduct occupies an uneasy and often misunderstood position. While many separating spouses feel strongly that behaviour during a marriage should influence the outcome, the courts have historically taken a cautious and restrained approach. The governing principle remains fairness where conduct is only one of many factors the courts look at.
However, recent High Court decisions, particularly LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473 and Wei-Lyn Loh v Ardal Loh-Gronager [2025] EWFC 483, have reignited debate about when and how conduct should shape outcomes in financial remedy proceedings. These cases suggest a subtle but important shift, that while the threshold remains high, the courts may be increasingly willing to engage with serious misconduct where fairness demands it.
When conduct matters
The starting point is section 25(2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which allows the court to consider conduct, but only where it would be “inequitable to disregard it.” This is deliberately a high bar.
In practice, this means that most forms of behaviour, such as infidelity, emotional neglect, or general marital unhappiness, are excluded. The courts have long resisted turning financial remedy proceedings into moral assessments of the marriage, and instead focus on financial needs, resources, and contributions.
Historically, conduct arguments have only succeeded in exceptional cases, typically involving:
- Serious financial misconduct (e.g. dissipation of assets)
- Fraud or deliberate non-disclosure
- Extreme personal behaviour with clear financial consequences
Even then, the court often prefers to deal with misconduct through costs orders rather than adjusting the substantive financial award. Yet, as recent case law shows, the boundaries of this principle are being tested.
A changing landscape in financial remedy proceedings
In the 2025 case of LP v MP, the court was confronted with a marriage marked by deception and coercive behaviour. The wife had misled the husband at the outset of the relationship and engaged in conduct that distorted the financial dynamic between them.
Crucially, the court accepted that although the financial consequences of the conduct were not easily quantifiable, this did not prevent it from being taken into account. The wife’s behaviour was described as “deplorable,” and the court reduced her financial award by 40%.
This is significant for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that conduct need not always produce a clear financial loss to be relevant. Second, it highlights a growing recognition of coercive and controlling behaviour within financial disputes. As legal commentary on the case notes, such behaviour may distort financial decision-making and create unfair outcomes, which in turn justifies judicial intervention.
The judgment suggests that the court is willing to look beyond economic consequences and consider the broader context of fairness. This marks a notable development in financial remedy proceedings, where traditionally only tangible financial misconduct carried weight.
If LP v MP signals a broader approach to marital conduct, Wei-Lyn Loh v Ardal Loh-Gronager illustrates the court’s response to serious litigation misconduct.
This case involved a short, high-value marriage governed by a pre-nuptial agreement. On paper, the agreement provided the husband with an entitlement of over £6 million. However, his conduct during the marriage and proceedings fundamentally altered the outcome.
The court found that the husband had:
- Withdrawn substantial sums without authorisation
- Concealed financial activity
- Fabricated or manipulated evidence
- Engaged in behaviour designed to intimidate the wife
This conduct was described as reaching “the most serious level of litigation misconduct.” Importantly, the court did not confine its response to costs. Instead, it made substantive adjustments to the financial award, reducing the husband’s entitlement significantly. The final award was reduced to approximately £2.37 million after accounting for the misconduct.
This decision reinforces that while conduct arguments remain difficult to establish, they can have dramatic consequences when successful. It also highlights that misconduct during the litigation process itself, rather than just during the marriage, can be highly relevant in financial remedy proceedings.
Fairness as the central principle
Fairness serves as the guiding principle in both situations. In Loh, the court stressed that “inequitable” is synonymous with unfairness, thereby linking the assessment of conduct to the wider fairness standard used in financial remedies.
This is particularly important in cases involving pre-nuptial agreements. While such agreements are generally upheld following Radmacher v Granatino, they are not immune to challenge. Where one party’s conduct undermines the integrity of the agreement or the fairness of its outcome, the court retains discretion to depart from it.
Similarly, in LP v MP, fairness required the court to consider how coercive behaviour had shaped the financial relationship, even in the absence of a clear monetary loss. These decisions suggest that conduct is not a separate or exceptional consideration, but rather part of the broader fairness exercise.
The high threshold remains
Despite these developments, it would be a mistake to assume that conduct arguments will now succeed more readily. The threshold remains deliberately high, with most allegations of bad behaviour still being disregarded.
For conduct to influence the outcome of financial remedy proceedings, it must typically:
- Be serious or exceptional
- Be clearly evidenced
- Have a material impact on fairness
The courts remain wary of allowing conduct disputes to dominate proceedings, as this can increase costs, prolong litigation, and distract from the central financial issues.
As a result of these two cases, there is ongoing concern within the legal profession that it may create uncertainty, making it harder to predict when conduct will be taken into account.
Practical implications for clients
For those involved in divorce and financial disputes, these developments carry several important lessons. First, conduct should not be relied upon lightly. Allegations must be carefully considered and supported by clear evidence, as weak or exaggerated claims can undermine credibility and increase costs.
Secondly, serious misconduct, particularly involving finances or the integrity of the legal process, can have serious consequences. This includes:
- Hiding or dissipating assets
- Providing false evidence
- Engaging in coercive financial control
In such cases, the court may go beyond costs penalties and adjust the substantive award.
Thirdly, litigation conduct matters. The way a party behaves during proceedings can be just as important as their conduct during the marriage. As seen in Loh, attempts to mislead the court or manipulate evidence can significantly reduce an award.
Finally, fairness remains the benchmark. The court’s primary objective is to achieve a fair outcome, and conduct will only be relevant where it is necessary to achieve that aim.
Find The Best Divorce & Family Lawyers Near You
We independently review and list the top divorce lawyers and family solicitors in the towns and cities near you. 100% free.
The information on this website is to be considered a guide and is therefore not legal advice. You use this information with the understanding that Wiselaw does not accept liability for any direct or indirect losses as a result of anyone relying on or acting upon the information on this website. Whilst we endeavour to provide accurate information, Wiselaw does not accept liability for any errors or omissions on this website.
