When Conduct Matters: Understanding the LP v MP Decision on Financial Remedy Proceedings

For years, family lawyers have grappled with a difficult question: when should one party’s conduct during a marriage affect how assets are divided on divorce? The law has long maintained a high threshold – behaviour must be “gross and obvious” and have measurable financial consequences before courts will take it into account.

The recent decision in LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473 may be changing that approach in financial remedy proceedings.

The Facts That Shocked the Court

The case involved a marriage lasting approximately 11-12 years. The husband had retired with personal wealth of around £21.5m before the parties even met.

What emerged during proceedings was extraordinary. The wife had subjected the husband to coercive and controlling behaviour throughout the marriage. She fabricated an entire identity, falsely claiming to be a High Court judge and demanding significant sums from the husband to pay for “judicial trips” and “academic studies”. In 2020, she pleaded guilty to two unrelated fraud offences.

The husband suffered serious physical violence from 2019 until separation in January 2023, some incidents occurring in front of their daughter. The wife made malicious false allegations – including claims the husband had sexually abused their child and had raped her.

Theis J, in separate Children Act proceedings, made findings that the wife had subjected the husband to coercive control, verbal and emotional abuse. The husband described being afraid of her, doing as she asked, losing contact with friends.

The Traditional Legal Position

Under section 25(2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, courts can consider conduct “if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it.”

In practice, that threshold has been high. As recently as 2024, Peel J in N v J emphasised that conduct must be “gross and obvious” and have a direct financial consequence. Recent decisions in Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023] and N v J [2024] found that financial consequence was a necessary ingredient for conduct to influence the final award.

The principle sounds fair – financial remedy proceedings focus on dividing assets, not punishing behaviour. But in reality, this created difficulties for survivors of domestic abuse. How do you quantify the financial impact of years spent living in fear? What’s the monetary value of isolation from friends and family?

What Cusworth J Decided

Justice Cusworth acknowledged that the matrimonial properties – two homes held in joint names – would normally be divided equally under the sharing principle established in Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane. However, he identified three factors justifying departure from equality.

First, adjacent farmland (commercially tenanted) was not treated as matrimonial property. Second, the wife had made no financial contribution whatsoever. Third – and most significantly – her conduct would be inequitable to disregard.

The judge described the wife’s behaviour as “deplorable conduct” which clearly passed the “obvious and gross” test. Drawing on Macur LJ’s analysis in Goddard-Watts v Goddard-Watts [2023], he determined that this conduct would be “the glass” through which the court would assess fairness.

Then came the crucial statement: “The impact of coercive and controlling behaviour may well be hard to measure, but that does not mean the impact will not be present. There is a real risk of unfairness to victims of such behaviour if it is ignored as a result.”

The wife’s notional 50% share of the matrimonial assets was reduced by 40% – she received just 60% of what would normally have been her half share, totalling £1,993,350. This was further reduced by £905,165 to account for sums she’d already extracted from the husband during the marriage. The judge also declined to make any needs-based top-up to her award, stating that “her needs would not be assessed generously as a result of her behaviour, nor was she entitled to enjoy the marital standard of living any further.”

Why This Decision Matters

The significance lies not in the outcome itself – the conduct here was genuinely exceptional – but in the reasoning Cusworth J used to reach it.

He acknowledged that while some financial loss could be identified (the sums transferred based on untruths, litigation costs), the full impact of the coercive control wasn’t easily quantifiable. Yet he determined that the absence of “readily quantifiable financial loss” should not bar the court from considering conduct where there’s a risk of unfairness to victims of domestic abuse.

This represents a subtle but important shift. Rather than requiring proof of specific financial loss attributable to abuse, the judge focused on whether it would be fair to ignore that conduct when dividing assets. The emphasis moves from compensation for measurable loss to recognition that abusive behaviour fundamentally affects the fairness of equal division.

Shortly before delivering judgment in LP v MP, Cusworth J had also presided over Loh v Loh-Gronager [2025] EWFC 483, where he commented that section 25(2)(g) requires consideration of conduct where it would be “inequitable to disregard it” – not necessarily where it’s “gross and obvious”. The statutory test may be broader than how it’s been applied in recent years.

What This Means in Practice

For those navigating divorce after experiencing domestic abuse, this decision offers both hope and caution.

Courts may be becoming more willing to recognise that coercive control, emotional abuse, and violence have consequences that matter – even when those consequences can’t be neatly itemised on a balance sheet.

But this remains a High Court decision, not Court of Appeal authority. We currently have different High Court judges expressing different views – Peel J in N v J maintaining the requirement for financial impact, Cusworth J suggesting fairness may require consideration of conduct without quantifiable loss. Until a case reaches the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court, there remains uncertainty.

The facts in LP v MP were also extreme – criminal convictions for fraud, elaborate deceptions maintained throughout the marriage, serious physical violence, and malicious false allegations. Most cases involving domestic abuse won’t involve quite this constellation of factors.

That said, the principle Cusworth J articulated – that difficulty in measuring impact doesn’t mean impact isn’t present – has wider application. It opens the door for courts to consider conduct in cases where the harm is primarily psychological, emotional, or involves control rather than direct financial depletion.

Looking Forward

The treatment of conduct in financial remedy proceedings appears to be at a crossroads. LP v MP and Loh v Loh-Gronager suggest that judicial thinking may be shifting towards a more nuanced approach – one that prioritises fairness over rigid requirements for quantifiable financial loss.

For those experiencing the reality of these proceedings rather than simply observing them professionally, the stakes are deeply personal. The question of whether the abuse you suffered will be recognised as relevant to how assets are divided isn’t academic – it’s about validation, justice, and your financial security moving forward.

What LP v MP offers isn’t certainty. It’s acknowledgment that the current approach may not adequately serve those who’ve endured domestic abuse, and a willingness to reconsider long-established principles where fairness demands it.