The £1.75 Million Mistake: Why Getting Your Consent Order Right Matters More Than You Think

It is easy, at the end of a marriage, to assume that once an agreement has been reached, the hard work is done.

For many couples, particularly those who separate amicably, there is a natural instinct to move forward quickly. Terms are agreed. Assets are divided. Both parties feel they have drawn a line under the relationship.

But what happens when something thought to be settled quietly resurfaces years later, bringing with it legal costs said to be in the region of £1.75 million and a claim worth many times more?

A recent High Court case provides a stark reminder of just how fragile an “agreement” can be if it is not properly formalised.

When an agreement is not enough

In Lin v Par, a couple separated after a relatively modest marriage and reached what they believed to be a clean break, meaning that neither of them could make further financial claims against the other in the future. They divided their assets equally and recorded their intentions in a draft Consent Order, a document which, once approved by the court, makes a financial agreement legally binding.

However, that draft was never approved and sealed by the court. For a time, that appeared to make little difference. Both parties moved on. Years passed. The husband went on to build substantial wealth.

It was only much later, after the wife had been approached and encouraged by a third party to revisit the circumstances of the settlement, that matters took a very different turn.

More than two decades after the separation, she issued a financial claim reportedly in the region of £10 million.

Her case was not simply that there had been no sealed Consent Order. She alleged that the original agreement had been reached in circumstances of material non-disclosure and undue pressure, arguing that key financial information had not been shared and that she had not freely agreed to the terms at the time.

What had once felt final was suddenly anything but.

The enduring misconception around divorce

Cases like this expose a persistent misunderstanding. Many people assume that the finalisation of a divorce automatically severs financial ties. It does not.

In England and Wales, the legal process of ending a marriage is entirely separate from resolving financial claims. Without a court-approved Consent Order, those claims can, in principle, remain open and capable of being brought at any point in the future.

That legal reality creates space for something else to intervene over time. Changed financial positions, shifting personal circumstances, or even the involvement of third parties can all prompt a reassessment of what was previously accepted.

What matters is not whether an agreement was reached, but whether it was properly concluded.

Why the court’s approval matters

A Consent Order is not simply a record of what has been agreed. It is the mechanism by which a financial settlement becomes legally binding and enforceable. Once approved by the court, it provides certainty and, where appropriate, can bring financial claims to an end through what is known as a clean break, preventing either party from making further claims in the future.

Without that approval, an agreement may reflect intention, but it does not carry finality. That distinction is often overlooked in amicable separations, where the absence of conflict can create a false sense of security.

The process and where it can go wrong

In many cases, the process for obtaining a Consent Order is relatively straightforward. Terms are agreed, a draft order is prepared, financial information is summarised, and the documents are submitted to the court for approval.

Where matters tend to unravel is not in complexity, but in assumption. A draft may never be finalised. Documents may be signed but not lodged. Parties may simply move on, believing that what has been agreed is enough.

Even where documentation exists, as this case illustrates, the absence of full financial disclosure, where both parties provide a complete and honest picture of their finances, or concerns about how the agreement was reached can leave the door open to later challenge.

Each of these scenarios carries the same underlying risk. The financial relationship has not, in legal terms, been brought to an end.

A costly lesson in hindsight

In Lin v Par, the husband ultimately succeeded in resisting the claim. The court took into account the passage of time and the fact that his wealth had been generated long after the marriage had ended.

But that outcome should not be mistaken for a clean victory. By the time the matter reached its conclusion, legal costs were said to be in the region of £1.75 million. The dispute itself was lengthy, complex, and inevitably intrusive.

In that sense, the case illustrates an important distinction. A party may succeed in legal terms, but still pay a significant price for issues that could have been resolved decisively at the outset.

Moving forward with certainty

For divorcing couples, the message is a simple one, even if it is often overlooked. An agreement is only part of the process. Finality comes from formalisation, in other words, from having the agreement reviewed and approved by the court.

Ensuring that a Consent Order is properly drafted, supported by full financial disclosure, and approved by the court is not an administrative step. It is what protects both parties from uncertainty in the years that follow.

Without it, even the most amicable separation can remain vulnerable to challenge, sometimes from unexpected directions.

And as this case demonstrates, the cost of leaving matters unresolved can be far greater than anyone anticipates at the time.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.