‘War’: A Family Lawyers’ Perspective

Sky’s new TV show War depicts two top London law firms clashing over a ruthless, high-stakes divorce involving a seriously wealthy London couple. It has become an increasingly popular watch among Mayo Wynne Baxter’s family team. Much to the annoyance of our friends and families, our favourite part is spending much of each episode pointing out what would not happen in practice.

The TV show depicts lawyers preparing for battle and treating the breakdown of a marriage as a competition. Of course, the series is deliberately heightened for entertainment, which makes for gripping television but, in our opinion, is not a fair reflection of how most family lawyers approach their work or how most couples experience divorce. In reality, our role is not to inflame conflict. It is to give clear advice, protect our clients’ interests and help them make sensible decisions at what is often one of the most difficult times in their lives. This is certainly our approach at Mayo Wynne Baxter. With that in mind, here are our three main thoughts while watching War.

1. Mediation is an important part of the resolution process

The importance of mediation and other forms of non-court dispute resolution cannot be overstated. The Family Procedure Rules require the court to consider, at every stage of proceedings, whether non-court dispute resolution is appropriate.

Mediation is not about one person “winning”. A mediator is independent, and their role is to help both people identify the issues, explore options and see whether an agreement can be reached. Its benefits include greater flexibility and privacy than court proceedings, and it may also be quicker and less expensive.

You can (and should) obtain legal advice alongside mediation. A solicitor can explain the legal framework, help you prepare, advise on proposals and ensure that any agreement is properly recorded and approved by the court. The mediator remains neutral; your solicitor advises you and looks out for your best interests.

Mediation can be an effective method of resolution and works best when both people enter the process genuinely intending to reach an agreement. It should not be treated as another battleground or as an opportunity to delay, conceal information or wear the other person down. It may not be suitable in every case, and this is something we can explore with you. Concerns such as domestic abuse, safeguarding issues or a serious imbalance of power may mean that a different process is needed.

2. Make informed offers only after full and frank disclosure

The intrigue in War depends heavily on secrecy, hidden information and some seriously unethical behaviour. In real financial remedy cases, however, proper disclosure is fundamental. Before meaningful settlement proposals can be made, each person needs a sufficiently clear, accurate and up-to-date picture of the other’s financial circumstances.

There is an ongoing duty to provide full and frank disclosure. This applies not only in court proceedings but also throughout mediation and negotiation. It is especially important in high-net-worth cases, where the assets may include businesses, trusts, investments, overseas property and significant pensions. Valuation evidence or specialist tax and pension advice may be required before either person can sensibly assess an offer. The off-the-cuff offers seen in War may not necessarily be appropriate. The process should remain proportionate, but an apparent shortcut at the disclosure stage can create greater cost, delay and uncertainty later.

Reaching an agreement without reliable disclosure may leave one person unable to judge whether the outcome is fair. Material non-disclosure can also put a settlement at risk. Past cases have shown judges setting aside orders and making substantial costs orders against the party responsible.

3. Divorce does not need to be a battle

War presents divorce as a brutal contest between spouses and their legal teams. Some separations are highly contentious, and court intervention is sometimes necessary to protect a person, a child or the family’s assets. But those cases should not define everyone’s expectations of divorce.

For many couples, separation is sad and difficult but broadly amicable. They want practical arrangements for their children, a fair financial outcome and the ability to move forward. A constructive approach does not mean giving up legal rights or avoiding difficult conversations. It means focusing on the issues that matter, communicating respectfully and choosing a process that is proportionate to the family’s circumstances.

That approach is particularly valuable where parents will continue to share responsibility for their children long after the divorce is finalised. Every pound and every ounce of energy spent escalating avoidable conflict is a resource the family cannot use for its future. As the Supreme Court observed in Sharland v Sharland, it is in everyone’s interests for matrimonial claims to be settled by agreement rather than through an adversarial battle in court, preserving both the family’s financial and emotional resources.

At Mayo Wynne Baxter, our family lawyers are members of Resolution and are committed to resolving family issues in a constructive and non-confrontational way wherever possible.

The final verdict

War is entertaining precisely because it turns a private family crisis into high-stakes drama. We will continue watching and probably continue discussing which scenes would never happen in real life.

But anyone facing separation should take reassurance from the fact that divorce does not have to look like this. With early legal advice, honest disclosure and a genuine commitment to resolution, many families can reach a fair outcome without allowing the process to become a war.