A completed D81, section by section
Here's what a properly completed D81 looks like, section by section, with a fictional couple we made up. Every figure below is invented for this example. Read it next to your own form, not instead of the full line-by-line guide, which covers every one of the form's 24 questions.
This is an illustration, not legal advice. Alex and Sam are not real people and their figures are invented to show how the boxes fit together. Your own statement of information is signed under a statement of truth, so check your own facts and figures against the current D81 on GOV.UK, and get anything unusual checked before you sign.
Meet Alex and Sam
- Married
- 12 years: 14 June 2013 to separation on 2 September 2025
- Children
- Ruby, 10, and Ollie, 6, who live mainly with Sam
- Home
- One house, 14 Birchwood Close, equity of £270,000 after the mortgage
- Pensions
- Two workplace pensions: Alex's worth £95,000, Sam's worth £40,000
- How they agreed
- Through mediation, then filed one joint D81 between them
- Applicant / Respondent
- Alex filed the Form A, so Alex is the applicant. Sam is the respondent.
1 Applicant and respondent details Who's who, the dates, the children, and how you reached the agreement
The example
Why it's written this way
Alex and Sam started living together five months before the wedding, and that earlier date goes in Q1 alongside the marriage date, not instead of it: a court reading fairness looks at the whole relationship, not just the years since the ceremony. The conditional order date at Q3 is the one the court checks first, because without it a judge cannot make the order at all. And Q7 is answered honestly rather than dressed up: an agreement reached in mediation is exactly what the tick box is for.
Most people get this wrong: putting the wedding date in Q1 and stopping there. If you moved in together first, that earlier date belongs on the form too. And leaving Q3 blank because "the conditional order is still coming" is worse than it looks: the form is explicit that without one, a judge cannot make a consent order at all, with only narrow exceptions for interim maintenance and child maintenance.
2 Summary of the order sought What they are actually asking the judge for, in plain English and in the wording the form wants
The example
The house gets sold. Sam and the children get more of the sale money because they need it to stay housed nearby. Alex keeps more of the pension for now, but moves a slice of it into a pension in Sam's name so retirement isn't lopsided. Neither of them pays the other maintenance going forward.
"The former matrimonial home to be sold, net proceeds divided 60% to the Respondent and 40% to the Applicant, reflecting the Respondent's greater housing need as primary carer of the children of the family. A pension sharing order in favour of the Respondent of 28% of the Applicant's workplace pension. Both parties' income claims against the other dismissed on a clean break basis."
Why it's written this way
Every sentence in the legal-phrasing column answers a question a judge is required to ask: what happens to the house, what happens to the pensions, and whether either of them still has a maintenance claim against the other. The 60/40 split is not left to speak for itself: it is tied directly to the reason for it, because a court gives first consideration to the welfare of any child under 18, and Sam is the one housing Ruby and Ollie day to day.
Most people get this wrong: writing "60/40 split" at Q13 with no reason attached. A 60/40 split with no stated reason leaves a judge nothing to weigh it against; a 60/40 split because one of you needs a deposit for a home the children can stay in reads as a decision, not a guess.
3 Assets: property, savings, pensions, debts The capital table at question 8, filled in with example figures
The example
| Row | What it is | Applicant (Alex) | Respondent (Sam) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 14 Birchwood Close, valued at £480,000 less the £210,000 mortgage | £270,000 (joint, held equally) | |
| B | Other capital: joint savings £15,000, Alex's cash ISA £8,000, Sam's premium bonds £3,000 | £15,500 | £10,500 |
| C | Gross capital total (A + B) | £150,500 | £145,500 |
| D | Liabilities: Sam's credit card balance | £0 | £2,400 |
| E | Net capital total, excluding pensions (C − D) | £150,500 | £143,100 |
| F | Pensions, cash equivalent value | £95,000 | £40,000 |
| G | Pension Protection Fund compensation | £0 | £0 |
| H | Total capital (E + F + G) | £245,500 | £183,100 |
Why it's written this way
Row A carries the house at its equity, £480,000 minus the £210,000 still owed, not at the asking price. It is jointly owned in equal shares, so it is split down the middle at row A even though the order later moves more of the sale proceeds to Sam. Row F keeps the pensions separate from row E rather than folded into the general capital total: Alex's is worth more than double Sam's, which is exactly the gap the pension sharing order at question 13 exists to narrow.
Most people get this wrong: putting the house down at its asking price instead of the equity after the mortgage, or deducting the mortgage a second time at row D. Forgetting a small account is another common one: the statement of truth you sign covers all of it, not just the tidy parts.
4 Income and earning capacity The income table at question 9, net and monthly
The example
| Row | What it is | Applicant (Alex) | Respondent (Sam) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Earned income, after tax and National Insurance | £3,200 | £1,450 |
| B–E | State benefits, pension income, interest, other | £0 | £0 |
| F | Sub-total (A to E) | £3,200 | £1,450 |
| G/H | Maintenance paid or received between the two of them | £0 | £0 |
| M | Grand total, net monthly income | £3,200 | £1,450 |
Why it's written this way
Alex works full time as a marketing manager. Sam went to three days a week when Ruby was born in 2016 and has stayed there, which is why the two incomes are not close to equal. That gap does not disappear at question 9; it goes on the table honestly, and it is the fact that question 14, later on the form, has to account for.
Most people get this wrong: writing down gross pay instead of net, or an annual salary instead of the monthly figure the form actually wants. Your payslip and your head both work in different units from this table, so convert before you write anything down.
5 Other circumstances The section 25 factors, and how they show up at questions 12, 14, 15 and 16
The example
Why it's written this way
This is the section 25 factors made concrete: the length of the marriage, the standard of living, each party's earning capacity now and in the future, and the welfare of Ruby and Ollie while they are still under 18. None of it is abstract on the form. Sam's reduced hours since 2016 is the fact that explains the 60/40 split and the pension share earlier in the form; without it, question 13's reasoning would have nothing to stand on.
Most people get this wrong: a vague answer at Q14 such as "we'll manage", when one party isn't working full time. And ticking the wrong box at Q16 to avoid an awkward conversation is a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth, not a shortcut.
This is not legal advice. Alex and Sam are invented, and their figures are chosen to show how the boxes on the form relate to each other, not to model what a court would decide for anyone else. Settle Divorce is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide legal services. Speak to a family solicitor before you agree or sign your own settlement.