During divorce or dissolution, financial disputes may arise not only between the divorcing spouses but also with third parties - commonly referred to as interveners - who assert beneficial or equitable rights over assets of which one or both parties to the divorce may hold legal title. The Family Court possesses jurisdiction to determine such property disputes in the context of financial remedy proceedings, but the exercise of joinder powers and the applicable legal framework can present significant procedural and strategic complexities.
Joinder to financial remedy proceedings
Joinder is not automatic and must be considered proportionately. However, except in narrowly technical or highly specialised cases best suited to Civil or Chancery divisions, the Family Court should determine property ownership disputes of third parties within financial remedy proceedings for efficiency and consistency.
The procedure by which such persons may be formally included in financial remedy proceedings is set out in the Family Procedure Rules (‘FPR 2010’), Part 9, notably rule 9.26B, which allows the court to join a third party when:
i. it is desirable to resolve all matters in dispute; or,
ii. a connected issue involving a third party needs determination within the same proceedings.
The Family Court derives its power to determine beneficial entitlement – even when a third party is involved - from section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (‘MCA 1973’)
Identifying interveners and the nature of their claims
Common examples of interveners in financial remedy proceedings include:
- Family members (e.g. parents) who contributed significant monies to property acquisition and later assert repayment or an equity stake.
- Trustees or beneficiaries claiming entitlement to trust property.
- Business partners or litigation funders with a financial interest in matrimonial assets or settlement proceeds.
Claims are assessed under property and trust law rather than the needs-based family law regime. If a third party establishes a bona fide beneficial interest, the relevant asset is excluded from the matrimonial pot and cannot be distributed between spouses.
The joinder procedure and case management
An intervener must either apply via Form D11 (or equivalent) or be joined at the court’s initiative. The court assesses whether they have a prima facie interest and whether joinder is warranted for fairness and enforceability of orders.
Once joinder is granted:
- The intervener files Points of Claim;
- Existing parties respond with Points of Defence;
- Disclosure orders, witness statements, and expert evidence may be directed;
- The court frequently orders a preliminary issue hearing on ownership before proceeding to the FDR or final hearing on financial remedy.
Ambit and limits of jurisdiction
While the Family Court has broad jurisdiction, it will normally retain ownership disputes unless highly technical trust or equity issues warrant referral to another division of the High Court. The aim is to preserve judicial continuity and procedural efficiency. However, detailed trust construction cases or complex offshore trust arrangements may exceed the expertise of the Family Court.
Strategic and cost considerations
Litigants must identify potential interveners at the outset and secure documented agreements, such as deeds of trust, loan agreements and/or declarations of intention, to reduce later evidential disputes.
Unlike ordinary financial remedy cases where each party bears their own costs, intervener proceedings carry cost risk: the losing party may be ordered to pay costs to multiple parties, leading to potentially disproportionate expense relative to the value of the asset involved. Careful consideration must therefore be given to the commercial risk involved.
Joinder is only desirable when necessary, such as where property transfer or sale is sought. When a spouse seeks a lump sum instead, joining all third parties asserting ownership may be disproportionate.
Role of the intervener post-joinder
Once joined, an intervener’s role broadly includes:
- submitting written pleadings and evidence in civil-style proceedings;
- attending the preliminary hearing to testify on their claimed interest;
- participating no further after their entitlement is determined – save in relation to enforcement or where further orders arise.
If an intervenor’s claim is upheld, the court will treat their interest in the asset as outside the matrimonial estate, reshaping the assets available for distribution between spouses.
Final considerations
Joinder and intervener claims in financial remedy proceedings demand a hybrid approach, combining family procedure and civil property law. The Family Court holds jurisdiction under MCA 1973 and FPR 9.26B to join third parties and resolve disputes over beneficial ownership within divorce proceedings, subject to judicial discretion, proportionality, and the merits of the claim.
Early identification, clear documentation, strategic case management (including preliminary hearings), and careful consideration of the cost risks are essential. Where handled properly, joinder empowers courts to render binding, enforceable orders that fairly reflect third party interests without resorting to separate litigation.
If you are considering intervening in financial remedy proceedings, or if you believe a third party may assert an interest in property that is the subject of financial remedy proceedings, it is vital to take specialist legal advice before taking steps to intervene in proceedings or to defend an application for joinder. Our solicitors regularly advise clients facing claims from third party intervenors, as well as advising interveners on the merits of prospective claims. We can provide expert advice and representation at each stage in the process and are frequently instructed to bring and defend intervener claims within the context of financial remedy proceedings.
