By Edward Lyons

IN recent years, English family law has increasingly recognised the damaging impact of coercive and controlling behaviour within marriage. While the criminal law now expressly prohibits “controlling or coercive behaviour” under the Serious Crime Act 2015, the civil courts also have tools to protect individuals whose financial decisions during marriage or divorce may have been distorted by such abuse.

Coercion does not always involve physical violence. Many spouses suffer economic abuse: being forced to hand over wages, excluded from household finances, pressured into disadvantageous financial arrangements or being subjected to “gaslighting”(a form of psychological manipulation intended to make the victim doubt their own perception, memory or judgement). In the divorce context, this can affect the fairness of financial remedy outcomes if one party has signed away rights under pressure, or entered into agreements they did not truly consent to.

Here are some potentially available remedies:

(a) Challenging a Financial Remedy Order: If in the course of a divorce a financial order was made by consent but one party’s agreement was procured through coercion or undue influence, the order may be challenged. The case of Edgar v Edgar established that agreements reached in the shadow of divorce can be set aside if the circumstances reveal pressure, exploitation, or failure to give full disclosure. More recently, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of proper consent can undermine an order. Where coercion can be evidenced, an application may be made to set aside the order, supported by evidence of the abusive dynamics and their impact on decision-making.

(b) Non-molestation and occupation orders: Alongside financial claims, victims of coercive control may apply for protective injunctions under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996. Non-molestation orders can restrain intimidation or harassment, while occupation orders can regulate who lives in the matrimonial home. These orders can create breathing space for the abused spouse to make independent financial decisions without fear of further coercion.

(c) Financial Remedy Proceedings Under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: Even if no order has yet been made, evidence of coercion is highly relevant when the court exercises its discretion in financial remedy cases. The court must assess the parties’ conduct and needs. Demonstrating that one spouse deliberately deprived the other of financial autonomy or pressured them into disadvantageous choices can support arguments for a larger share of capital or ongoing maintenance.

(d) Setting Aside Transactions: In extreme cases, transactions entered into during the marriage – for example, transferring property or savings under pressure – may be challenged on grounds of undue influence or lack of informed consent. Equity has long intervened where a party’s free will has been overborne, and family courts can deploy these principles to prevent unjust enrichment through coercion.

Anyone who believes coercive control has affected their financial rights should:

• Seek legal advice promptly, as delay can prejudice applications.

• Gather evidence (texts, emails, witness accounts, financial records.