CHAPTER TWO – THE LEGAL STATUS OF PETS IN ENGLAND AND WALES
2.1 To understand how courts resolve disputes about pets on divorce, one must begin with the basic legal premise: pets are property. While clients often assume there must be a welfare-based framework, or at least flexibility akin to decisions concerning children, nothing of the sort currently exists.
2.2 The current legal view of animals is rooted in centuries-old principles of property law. Historically, animals were valued according to their utility: livestock for food or agricultural work, horses for labour or transport, and dogs for hunting or guarding. Companion animals existed, of course, but their legal status was not derived from emotional attachment. Instead, they were categorised as “goods” or “chattels”, forming part of a person’s personal property.
2.3 This classification persists today. In legal terms, a dog is not a member of the family but a tangible item, albeit one with unique characteristics. This means that ownership and not welfare, is the central concern. When a couple divorces, the relevant statutory framework is the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, particularly section 24, which empowers the court to make property adjustment orders. These include the transfer of any property, land, money, investments, or chattels from one spouse to another. A pet, therefore, is something that can be transferred under this provision.
2.4 Crucially, the court has no inherent jurisdiction to make orders based on an animal’s welfare or “best interests”. The welfare principle in section 1 of the Children Act 1989 applies exclusively to children. Judges cannot extend it to animals, even if both parties feel passionately that welfare considerations should guide the outcome.
2.5 This strict reliance on ownership creates several practical problems. First, ownership may not reflect reality. A dog might be registered in one person’s name because they arranged the microchip or paid the adoption fee, even though the other partner performed most of the day-to-day care. Second, documentation may be inconsistent or ambiguous. Microchip registration, for example, is not definitive proof of ownership; it establishes who is responsible for updating details, not necessarily who owns the animal. Courts therefore must weigh a mosaic of evidence, including purchase receipts, registration documents, veterinary records, and behavioural patterns.
2.6 Moreover, English law does not recognise the concept of “shared care” for pets. While couples often share responsibilities during their relationship, shared legal ownership must be consciously established, typically through joint purchase or explicit agreement. In many relationships, couples simply do not consider these questions at the point of acquiring a pet. As a result, shared ownership is often difficult to prove.
2.7 Another complication is that courts prioritise a clean break in financial remedy proceedings. Judicial reluctance to impose ongoing shared arrangements is well-established. Courts avoid crafting orders requiring continuing cooperation between former partners unless absolutely necessary. This principle, combined with the classification of pets as property, means shared-care orders for pets are almost never made. Even if parties request such arrangements, courts tend to discourage them, directing couples instead towards negotiated or informal agreements.
2.8 Client expectations can therefore be at odds with legal reality. A person who views their pet as a family member may feel bewildered to discover that the law treats disputes in a manner akin to determining ownership of a household object. For practitioners, managing these expectations is an essential early task. A clear explanation of the legal framework is often necessary to reduce shock, disappointment, or escalating conflict.
2.9 Despite these constraints, there is some flexibility. The court can consider practical factors indirectly, such as who is better placed to house the pet or who has more stable working hours, but these points serve only to highlight ownership, they do not form an independent welfare test. For example, if evidence of ownership is evenly balanced, judges may take into account who has historically provided day-to-day care or who has a stronger emotional relationship with the animal. But such considerations are not determinative; they merely guide interpretation of the underlying property question.
2.10 Looking forward, the persistence of this strict property approach raises important questions about whether the law remains fit for purpose. Society increasingly views pets as family members, and the emotional stakes in pet disputes can be exceptionally high. Yet the law offers only a narrow conceptual lens through which to resolve them. This tension forms the foundation for later chapters assessing comparative reform and the work of the Working Group on Pets on Divorce & Separation, of which the authors are members.
2.11 It should be noted that this is not a book about animals, generally. It is however appropriate to refer to certain aspects of the law, for the sake of completeness.
2.12 Although the formal legal status of a domesticated animal is that of a chattel, the law recognises that such creatures have attributes which are far more extensive than those possessed by non-sentient objects. Therefore, Halsbury’s Laws has nearly half a volume on the law relating to animals, covering such things as:
- the health of animals;
- the welfare of animals and the protection of animals from cruelty, including the regulation of scientific experiments on animals;
- the keeping of animals in establishments such as zoos or riding stables;
- the keeping, breeding and sale of dogs. Including dangerous dogs;
- certain criminal and civil liabilities of owners or keepers for damage caused by their animals
2.13 All of these aspects are governed by primary or secondary legislation. In contrast Halsbury’s Laws states that “the principles of ownership of animals are derived from the common law, which has been long settled”.
It says:
“Domestic animals, like other personal and movable chattels, are the subject of absolute property. The owner can maintain a claim for their detention or conversion, or for trespass to goods in respect of them, and retains property in them if they stray or are lost”
2.14 That said, there is obviously a considerable difference between an inanimate object and a sentient being. For this reason there are many legal rules relating to animals that simply do not apply to inanimate objects. For example, there are rules relating to the registration of ownership. All horses, donkeys and ponies must be microchipped and the details recorded in a passport.
2.15 In the UK, there are currently 81 Passport Issuing Organisations (PIOs). While the BHS is one of the most common for “ID-only” passports, most PIOs are specialized Breed Societies that manage specific studbooks. All individual PIO records (including the BHS’s) feed into the UK Central Equine Database. This is the only national register. An owner can use the National Chipchecker to see if a horse’s microchip is correctly registered to them in the national database.
It is not possible to change ownership directly on the CED; it must be done through the horse’s specific passport issuer (like the BHS), who then updates the CED automatically.
Regardless of which organization issued the passport, the following rules are strictly enforced as of March 2026:
The “30-Day” Rule: When you buy a horse, you have exactly 30 days to send the passport to the relevant PIO to update the ownership.
You must return the passport to the issuing PIO within 30 days of a horse’s death to have it invalidated.
Although the name of the last recorded owner in the passport is not conclusive, it will be very powerful evidence of ownership.
Dogs
2.16 Microchipping has been compulsory for all dogs in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland since 2016. Puppies must be microchipped and registered by the time they are 8 weeks old. The breeder is legally responsible for microchipping them and registering themselves as the first owner before the puppy leaves for its new home. If you are buying a puppy, you must keep your contact details (phone, address) up to date on the database. Failure to do so is a secondary offence, with a fine of up to £500.
Cats (England Only)
2.17 A major legal change occurred in 2024, making microchipping mandatory for pet cats in England. All pet cats must be microchipped by the time they reach 20 weeks of age. There is no exemption for indoor-only cats. They must be chipped because they can still escape or be stolen. If your cat is found without a chip, you will be given 21 days to comply. If you don’t, you can be fined up to £500.
Vaccination record
2.18 An up-to-date vaccination card is an almost legal requirement for cats and dogs. As with horses, the name of the owner on an animal health certificate for travel abroad or on the vaccination card or on the microchip register will be extremely strong proof of ownership.
Liability for injury caused by your animal.
2.19 Animals Act 1971. This sought to put extremely convoluted common law rules on a statutory footing but as a decision of the House of Lords in Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] UKHL 16, showed the new law was scarcely less torturous. This case is famous (and somewhat controversial) because it established that a keeper can be held strictly liable for damage or injury caused by an animal, even if the owner was not negligent and the animal was behaving “normally” for its species in those specific circumstances. Note that the strict liability applies to the owner or keeper of an animal.
Offences of cruelty to animals
2.20 The Animal Welfare Act 2006 creates a number of offences in relation to its aims of the prevention of harm to animals and the promotion of the welfare of animals, upon conviction of which the offender is liable to a fine or imprisonment or both; and in addition orders may be made for deprivation of ownership, disqualification from owning or keeping animals, the seizure or destruction of animals, the forfeiture of equipment used in offences, and the cancellation of, or disqualification from holding, a licence. Extensive powers of inspection, search and seizure are conferred by the Act in relation to animals in distress, animal fights and other offences; in relation to licences and registration; for the inspection of farm premises; and to ensure compliance with EU obligations.
2.21 The Animal Welfare Act 2006 also provides for the registration and licensing of activities involving animals, for the issue of codes of practice to provide practical guidance in respect of any provision made by or under the Act, and for the appointment of inspectors.
2.22 These extensive rules recognise that an animal is a sentient being. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 provides that the Animal Sentience Committee will be established by the Secretary of State as from a day to be appointed. The purpose of the Act is stated to be: “An Act to make provision for an Animal Sentience Committee with functions relating to the effect of government policy on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”
2.23 When any government policy is being or has been formulated or implemented, the Animal Sentience Committee may make recommendations for the purpose of ensuring that, in any further formulation or implementation of the policy, the government has all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. Unfortunately, this Act is yet to come into force.
Conclusion
2.24 It is fair to say that the object of the 2006 and 2022 Acts is to promote the welfare of animals as sentient beings. Where there is a dispute in divorce proceedings between two persons over the care and control of a pet, it is therefore not a big reach for the court, in its consideration of all the circumstances of the case, to promote the welfare of the animal as a sentient being.
2.25 Technically there is no impediment to giving effect to a welfare-based decision. The ownership of the animal by the party who is given its care and control can be achieved by a property adjustment order (if that party is not already the owner).