Matrimonial Assets - Dividing Assets - Divorce Solicitors Leeds

More News

Dividing Assets

Not so new now but still a major change in the way assets are divided after divorce. more

Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is more common than generally supposed and is a problem for both partners. more

Child Contact

When parents are separating it is vitally important that proper child contact arrangements are made. more

Who owns the house?

When relationships breakdown and couples decide to separate, often the most difficult issue is the occupation of and ownership in the home. more

NEWS

Major Changes

Not so new now but still a major change in the way assets are divided after divorce. This case has had a trickle down effect on all matrimonial finance cases to the extent that the courts are now very reluctant to depart from dividing all assets especially in long marriage equally.

White v White
House of Lords 26 October 2000

A judge exercising his discretion pursuant to s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 should check his tentative views against the yardstick of equality of division before finally making up his mind, and should depart from equality only if and to the extent that there was good reason for doing so. A claimant's financial needs or reasonable requirements were not to be regarded as determinative, especially when the parties' financial resources exceeded their financial needs.

The House of Lords so held, dismissing an appeal by the husband, Martin Edward John White, and a cross-appeal by the wife, Pamela Rosemary White, from a decision of the Court of Appeal (Butler-Sloss, Thorpe and Mantell LJJ) ([1999] Fam 304), allowing the wife's appeal from an order of Holman J who, on an application in the Bristol District Registry of the Family Division, for ancillary relief awarded the wife £800,000 on receipt of which the wife was required to transfer to the husband the legal interest in all jointly owned assets. The Court of Appeal awarded the wife a lump sum of £1.5 million.

The parties married in 1961 and had adult children. They divorced in 1995. Throughout the marriage they had farmed together in a partnership to which each had contributed equally in cash or in kind. In 1996 the parties' overall assets were worth £4.6m.

LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD said that before reaching a firm conclusion, a judge exercising his statutory discretion under s 25 would be well advised to check his tentative views against the yardstick of equality of division. As a general guide equality should be departed from only if and to the extent that there was good reason for doing so.

It should be possible to use equality as a form of check without that being treated as a legal presumption of equal division. The statutory provisions lent no support to the idea that a claimant's financial needs, even interpreted generously and called reasonable requirements, were to be regarded as determinative.

The mere absence of financial need could not of itself be a sufficient reason why the wife should be confined to her financial needs and the husband left with the much larger balance. Holman J misdirected himself and the Court of Appeal was entitled to exercise afresh the statutory discretionary powers.

There were no grounds entitling their Lordships to interfere with the Court of Appeal's exercise of discretion.

Divorce Solicitors Leeds - West Yorkshire - Child Disputes and Matrimonial law specialists in the Leeds area of the UK