How much will a divorce cost me?
How much a divorce costs very much depends on how your spouse responds to the divorce proceedings. There is a set Court fee of £593 which you will have to pay if you issue the Application and any Solicitor fees will be in addition to that. Some people may be eligible for a fee exemption. Solicitor fees are usually between £500 to £1,000 if matters are straightforward, however, if your spouse decides not to respond to the divorce or there is an issue regarding jurisdiction (i.e. whether you should be divorced in England or Wales) the costs can significantly increase. Your costs are also typically higher if you are the Applicant rather than the Respondent.
You can contact one of our experienced divorce lawyers to discuss the fixed fee further and to find out what is and is not included within the overall cost by emailing familylawenquiries@wardhadaway.com or utilising any of the contact details listed below.
In some cases, it is a good idea to approach your spouse before issuing a divorce application so that you can agree on the best way to proceed and you could even try and reach an agreement as to how the costs of the divorce could be shared. These negotiations can take place through a Solicitor.
Please also be aware that these costs are in relation to the divorce process only. If you also need advice on your finances or any child care arrangements, there will potentially be additional Court, expert and Solicitor fees for this. We ensure all clients are provided with an estimate of all costs at the outset.
Related FAQs
The Government expects the use of bespoke contractual documents to implement temporary arrangements relating to your PFI contracts.
With time and resource precious commodities, focus should be given to documenting:
- The key changes to your PFI requirements
- The temporary nature of the measures
- The requirement for best efforts on behalf of the PFI Contractor
- The importance of continued health and safety measures at all times
Directors of a company that is in, or potentially facing, financial difficulty have a duty to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole. Failure to comply with that duty can have consequences for directors (including personal liability and disqualification if directors get it wrong).
The duty to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole begins when the company is (or in some cases is potentially or at risk of becoming) insolvent i.e. its assets are worth less than its liabilities and/or the business is unable to pay its liabilities as and when they fall due. However, just because a company is insolvent doesn’t always necessarily mean than an insolvency process is inevitable. Sometimes, the insolvency might just be caused by a temporary cashflow problem or perhaps wider problems in the business that can be overcome by making changes to the business itself.
In addition to that, the potential liability of directors ramps up even further when the company reaches the stage that the directors have concluded (or ought to have concluded) that there was no reasonable prospect of the business avoiding liquidation or administration. If the business reaches that stage, in addition to having to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole, directors can find themselves personally liable unless, from the time the directors ought to have reached that conclusion, they took every step that they ought to have done to minimise the loss to creditors. This is known as wrongful trading.
On the 25th June 2020, the government introduced new legislation – the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 – which includes measures to temporarily relax the rules around wrongful trading with the proposed changes to take effect retrospectively from the 1st March 2020. Essentially, the changes say that any court looking at a potential wrongful trading claim against a director is to assume that the director is not responsible for worsening the company’s financial position between 1st March 2020 and the 30th September 2020. Whilst the wrongful trading rules have relaxed, directors still need to proceed with caution if the business is potentially insolvent as the new Act does alter other potential pitfalls for directors, like the risk of breaching their duties or allowing the company to enter into transactions that can potentially be challenged.
The support being offered by the government is potentially a lifeline for businesses under pressure through no fault of their own, but notwithstanding the recent changes to the wrongful trading rules it is still likely to be important for the board to carefully consider whether it is appropriate to make use of the loans, grants and tax forbearance that are on offer.
Exactly what the board should consider will vary from business to business and getting it right can sometimes involve balancing several different (and at times conflicting) priorities, challenges and concerns.
Yes, but only for work purposes and where it is unreasonable to do so from home. Work colleagues cannot meet to socialise.
Specialist healthcare lawyers from Ward Hadaway ran a free webinar looking at the practical and legal considerations if required to treat healthcare workers from a BAME background or other vulnerable groups differently in the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic.
It is a theoretical possibility that “anti-vax” beliefs could be a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010 and therefore anti-vaxers have the right not to be discriminated against for their beliefs. Much will depend on why the individual is against the vaccine. Conspiracy theorists (the vaccine is being used as an opportunity to monitor you or it’s all because of 5G) are highly unlikely to be treated as having a philosophical belief!