Categories
Family Law Law

Family Law Act 1996

Ministry of Injustice - Law and Justice

The Family Law Act 1996 is an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom that sets out the legal framework for family matters such as divorce, domestic violence, and child custody. The Act aimed to modernize and simplify family law, promote the resolution of family disputes through mediation, and encourage cooperation between parents in cases involving children.

The Family Law Act 1996 gives the courts and judges a number of powers, including:

Divorce: The Act introduced a new concept of “irretrievable breakdown” of marriage as the sole ground for divorce. The court has the power to grant a divorce if it is satisfied that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

Mediation: The Act requires parties to consider mediation as a way to resolve their disputes before they can proceed with a court application. The court has the power to adjourn proceedings to allow parties to participate in mediation and to make orders for mediation.

Domestic violence: The Act introduced new measures to protect victims of domestic violence, including the power of the court to issue injunctions and restraining orders.

Child custody: The Act established the principle that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in any decision made by the court regarding the child’s custody, upbringing, and welfare.

Child contact: The Act introduced the concept of “parental responsibility” and established that both parents have a duty to maintain contact with their child after separation. The court has the power to make orders for contact and to enforce these orders.

Financial provision: The Act gives the court the power to make orders for financial provision on divorce, including maintenance payments, lump sum payments, and property adjustment orders.

Overall, the Family Law Act 1996 provides the courts and judges with a wide range of powers to resolve family disputes and protect the welfare of children and vulnerable adults.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

[post_title] was last updated on the 2nd June 2026

By Dom Watts

Dom Watts founded the Ministry of Injustice in July 2021. Dom is an IT Professional with 30+ years experience in Tier 1 Banking, Government, Defence, Healthcare and Global Blue Chips. Dom has no legal training and is not a lawyer but has previously consulted for a Magic Circle Law Firm. You can find Dom on X or Google.

Dom Watts publishes the Ministry of Injustice as a citizen journalist. The journalism exemption is detailed in the Data protection and journalism code of practice published by the ICO and Section 124 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of truth. Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of public interest. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the single publication rule.

Section 4a of The Limitation Act 1980 defines the time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood as one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression. "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

"Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another." - Para 43 Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

"Free speech is a fundamental common law right" - Para 21 R v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11 [2003] 1 AC 247 per Lord Bingham and Para 42 Phillips -v- Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin)

Dom is a member of The Free Speech Union

“A key issue here is the need to distinguish between conduct which, however objectionable, does not justify invoking the criminal law and conduct which crosses the line and results in criminal liability" - Para 31 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

“Harassment is generally understood to involve improper oppressive and unreasonable conduct that is targeted at an individual and calculated to produce alarm and distress” - Para 38 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

"The behaviour said to amount to harassment must reach a level of seriousness passing beyond irritations, annoyances....The gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability" - Paras [40-44] Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything"

In 2002 Dom Watts was an unlikely consumer champion. The dad of three from Croydon took on the power and might of Kodak – and won...Dom on BBC Working Lunch

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent