Consent Order vs Clean Break After Divorce
The difference between a consent order (a court-approved agreement on financial matters after divorce) and a clean break order, and which is appropriate depending on your circumstances.
Overview
After a divorce, the financial relationship between former spouses does not end automatically — either party can make financial claims against the other unless and until those claims are dismissed by a court order. A consent order is a court-approved order recording the terms of a financial agreement. A clean break order is a specific type of consent order (or court order) that completely severs the financial relationship and prevents either party from making future financial claims against the other. Understanding the difference, and getting the right order, is critical to achieving certainty after divorce.
Side-by-Side Comparison
Consent Order
Pros
- Binding and enforceable — breach can be treated as contempt of court
- Flexible — can include any terms the parties agree on (lump sums, property transfer, pension sharing, maintenance)
- Can be varied in some respects (particularly maintenance) if circumstances change
- Certainty that the agreed terms are recorded and cannot be disputed
- Approved by the court, which acts as a safeguard against manifestly unfair terms
Cons
- If it includes ongoing periodical payments (maintenance), the financial relationship continues and either party can apply to vary it
- Without a clean break, a surviving spouse may still have claims on an estate (inheritance claims)
- Drafting must be precise — poorly drafted orders can be ambiguous and lead to enforcement disputes
- Requires both parties to agree — if one party refuses to negotiate, you must proceed to a contested financial remedy hearing
Best For
Parties where ongoing financial support is genuinely needed (e.g., a spouse who cannot be immediately self-sufficient due to caring responsibilities, ill health, or a large income disparity); cases where the financial settlement involves a property transfer or pension sharing that does not end all financial ties.
Clean Break Order
Pros
- Complete finality — neither party can make future financial claims against the other
- Prevents a windfall claim if one party's financial circumstances improve dramatically (e.g., win the lottery, business success)
- Removes the possibility of the other party returning to court years later
- Allows both parties to move on financially with certainty
- Courts actively encourage clean breaks where they are appropriate
Cons
- Irrevocable — once the clean break is made, it cannot be reopened even if circumstances change dramatically (subject to fraud or very limited exceptions)
- Not appropriate where one party genuinely needs ongoing financial support (e.g., caring for young children, long-term ill health)
- May require a larger lump sum or property settlement to compensate for the loss of ongoing maintenance
- Must be specifically ordered — courts will not assume a clean break unless it is expressly included in the order
Best For
Parties with broadly equal financial positions; short marriages without children; cases where both parties are financially independent; cases where ongoing maintenance would be inappropriate or the receiving party is capable of becoming self-sufficient.
Key Differences
Our Recommendation
A clean break is the gold standard outcome for most divorcing couples — it provides complete finality and prevents either party from making claims on the other's future financial success. Courts are required to consider whether a clean break is appropriate in every case. However, a clean break is only appropriate where both parties can genuinely be financially independent: where there are young children, a large income disparity, long-term ill health, or very unequal pension provision, an order that includes ongoing maintenance may be necessary. In all cases, once a financial order is made, it is binding — do not proceed without specialist legal advice.