A divorce case involving a dog has raised a talking point about how courts view animals in marital disputes – and highlighted that including horses in pre-nuptial agreements could be beneficial.
In the case of FI v DO, a dispute between a husband and wife over who should retain ownership of the family dog, the judge ruled in favour of the wife, who had solely cared for the dog for 18 months.
Pets are considered by courts as chattels – as stated by the judge in this case – comparative to a personal possession like jewellery or a car. But the judge also said the wife’s evidence was “far more in tune with someone who has the welfare of the dog at heart”.
“Few truths in family law land harder than discovering that, in divorce, your horse ranks legally alongside the furniture. The family court makes no distinction between a horse and a motorbike; both are property to be valued, divided or sold like any other asset,” equine lawyer Hannah Bradley and family lawyer Karim Assaad of Aria Grace Law told H&H, adding that in FI v DO “the judge could not have been clearer”.
“He said: ‘It matters not who paid for the dog. The dog is a chattel.’ In the same paragraph, he was concerned that the case ‘veered into the realms of a Children Act application’, rejecting the idea that welfare or emotional factors could determine outcome.
“Some commentators have read that decision as a turning point, a gentle move towards animal welfare and emotional attachment. We do not agree. The judge’s later references to who had ‘principally looked after the dog’ and where the dog felt at home were not an appeal to sentiment, but a recognition of fact.
“The wife had cared for the dog for 18 months and so in deciding between the parties, the court favoured the wife and consequently declared that she owned the dog in law.”
Ms Bradley and Mr Assaad said that although the judgment was “written with empathy it did not alter the legal test” to be applied.
“Pets remain chattels and the test is ownership. The fate of pets in divorce proceedings are decided by evidence, not affection,” they said.
“The same principles that applied in the FI v DO case applies with equal force to horses. Upon divorce, a horse may be sold and the proceeds divided or retained by one party who buys out the other or if the court is invited, having heard evidence, to determine who should remain in possession of the horse, it will do so on the basis of principles of ownership and not on welfare assessments.”
Solicitor Jacqui Dark of Equine Law UK told H&H that in her view, FI v DO was an example where the judge used his discretion to decide to whom the dog was given as part of the divorce proceedings, when the wife had not solely bought the dog but had become his main carer.
“My view is that this is correct, as it is in the best interest of the dog and the courts are quite right to take his welfare into account,” said Mrs Dark.
“The same would happen with any other animal in divorce proceedings. So, for example, if a husband purchased a horse and the wife did the daily care, overseeing vets, riding and training etc, it is possible that the judge – where there is a dispute as to where the horse is left after divorce proceedings – could allow ownership of the horse to be with the wife as part of the divorce settlement.”
Mrs Dark added that with a high-value horse, one party could ask the court to order its sale, an option the court could consider.
“Ultimately, the court can consider welfare and this is an important factor to take into account. Vets/other professionals can be called on to give expert evidence if necessary,” she said.
“If there is a pre-nup, this may change things and you should seek advice from a family law specialist on this point.”
Legal director Jennifer Headon of Birketts told H&H that pets have been a “hot topic” in family law and believes that including animals in pre- and post-nuptial agreements can be useful.
“There’s no reason not to factor pets into these agreements. It’s an emotive topic for clients, and you can save yourself a lot of emotional and financial toll,” she said.
“It might include who would keep the horses post-separation – or how the expenses will be divided. Although pre-nuptial agreements are not legally binding, they are generally given significant weight by the court if they’re properly entered into.
“I would advise they are drawn up by a solicitor, and one of the factors taken into consideration is whether the parties have had independent legal advice.”
British Horse Society (BHS) director of horse care and welfare Gemma Stanford told H&H divorce and separation can be an incredibly difficult time, and “it’s understandable that practical considerations around horses may not always feel like a priority”.
“However, as recent cases have shown, horses can become part of wider legal discussions, making it important for owners to keep clear records of ownership, financial contributions and day-to-day care, such as who pays for livery, veterinary fees and other ongoing costs,” she said.
“Seeking appropriate legal advice can help reduce uncertainty and stress for all involved. For BHS gold members, our legal helpline is available to provide confidential, practical guidance on a wide range of legal matters, including situations where personal circumstances may impact ownership”.
- To stay up to date with all the breaking news from major shows throughout 2026, subscribe to the Horse & Hound website
You may also be interested in:
Horse sellers beware? How consumer law could mean dealers get the raw end of the deal
Court case over £21,000 deposit highlights need for contracts in horse sales
Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round
