No fault divorce: 20 weeks then 6 weeks (MCA 1973 s. 1)
Under MCA 1973 s. 1, courts must treat irretrievable breakdown statements as conclusive evidence. Wait 20 weeks to confirm, then 6 weeks to final order.
Official text
·
MCA 1973 s. 1 — United Kingdom
Subject to section 3, either or both parties to a marriage may apply to the court for an order (a “divorce order”) which dissolves the marriage on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. An application under subsection (1) must be accompanied by a statement by the applicant or applicants that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. The court dealing with an application under subsection (1) must— take the statement to be conclusive evidence that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, and make a divorce order. A divorce order— is, in the first instance, a conditional order, and may not be made final before the end of the period of 6 weeks from the making of the conditional order. The court may not make a conditional order unless— in the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by one party to the marriage only, that party has confirmed to the court that they wish the application to continue, or in the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by both parties to the marriage, those parties have confirmed to the court that they wish the application to continue; and a party may not give confirmation for the purposes of this subsection before the end of the period of 20 weeks from the start of proceedings. The Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument amend this section so as to shorten or lengthen the period for the purposes of subsection (4)(b) or (5). But the Lord Chancellor may not under subsection (6) provide for a period which would result in the total number of days in the periods for the purposes of subsections (4)(b) and (5) (taken together) exceeding 26 weeks. In a particular case the court dealing with the case may by order shorten the period that would otherwise be applicable for the purposes of subsection (4)(b) or (5). A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (6) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. Without prejudice to the generality of section 75 of the Courts Act 2003, Family Procedure Rules may make provision as to the procedure for an application under subsection (1) by both parties to a marriage to become an application by one party to the marriage only (including provision for a statement made under subsection (2) in connection with the application to be treated as made by one party to the marriage only).
Section 1 in its current form is the no-fault divorce provision. Either party, or both jointly, may apply for a divorce order on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, and the application must be accompanied by a statement to that effect. Subsection (3) then removes any inquiry: the court "must" take the statement to be conclusive evidence of irretrievable breakdown and "must" make a divorce order. There is nothing to prove and, in substance, nothing to defend.
What replaces the old inquiry is time. A divorce order is in the first instance a conditional order, and it may not be made final before six weeks from the making of the conditional order. Separately, a party may not confirm to the court that they wish the application to continue - the step that allows a conditional order to be made - before the end of twenty weeks from the start of proceedings. The two periods run in sequence, which is why the minimum is a little over six months in practice.
Subsection (8) lets the court in a particular case shorten either period by order, which is how urgent cases are dealt with. Subsection (6) allows the Lord Chancellor to change the lengths by statutory instrument, subject to a cap of twenty-six weeks in total. The section says nothing at all about money, property or children: those are separate applications, and it is common for a conditional order to be in place long before the financial arrangements are resolved.
When it applies
One spouse wants a divorce and the other does not agree the marriage is over.
A couple applying jointly and wanting to know the earliest realistic date.
Working out the difference between a conditional order and a final order.
An urgent case where a party wants the waiting period shortened.
Understanding why the divorce itself is straightforward while the money is not.
What this section does not say
×It does not require any fault. Adultery, behaviour and separation periods are no longer facts to be proved under this section.
×It cannot be defended on the merits. The statement of irretrievable breakdown is conclusive evidence, and the court must make the order.
×It does not deal with money or property. Financial orders come from sections 23, 24, 24A and the rest of Part II.
×It does not deal with children. Arrangements for children are made under the Children Act 1989.
×It does not remove the one-year bar. Section 3 prevents an application for a divorce order within one year of the marriage.
×The conditional order does not end the marriage. Only the final order does, and it cannot be made before the six-week period has run.
Worked examples
Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.
Illustrative example
One spouse applies for a divorce in the spring. The other says they will not agree to it, will not sign anything, and will fight it in court.
How the wording applies
Subsection (3) removes the argument: the court must take the statement of irretrievable breakdown to be conclusive evidence and must make a divorce order. There is nothing to prove and, in substance, nothing to defend. The fact that determines the timetable instead is time - twenty weeks before the applicant can confirm they wish to continue, and six weeks between the conditional order and the final one - so refusal changes nothing except the atmosphere.
How the parties settled it
Both agree not to spend anything further on arguing about the divorce itself and to put the effort into a financial disclosure timetable, with the conditional order applied for in the ordinary way.
Illustrative example
A couple applying jointly want to be divorced before the end of the tax year and cannot work out whether that is realistic.
How the wording applies
The two periods run in sequence, which is why the practical minimum is a little over six months rather than twenty weeks. Subsection (8) lets the court in a particular case shorten either period by order, but that is for urgency rather than convenience. The fact worth separating out is that the divorce order does not deal with money at all - the financial order under sections 23 and 24 is the part that usually governs the real timetable.
How the parties settled it
They agree to apply now, to exchange financial disclosure during the twenty-week period, and to aim for a consent order to be lodged before the conditional order is made final.
Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the Acts of Parliament that apply in England and Wales.
We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.
This page reproduces the text of MCA 1973 s. 1 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in England and Wales.