Special considerations

Contributions

In most cases a detailed analysis of the parties’ contributions will be specifically excluded by the court. The fact that one party was the breadwinner and one the homemaker should not, by itself, provide any justification for a departure from the sharing principle. Such an approach would be discriminatory, per White v White [2000] 2 FLR 981.

Only in exceptional cases will a contribution over and above that which would normally be found, financial or otherwise, be a factor.

See Practice Note: Contributions of the parties. The following Precedent letter may be sent by practitioners to their clients: Financial applications to the court—client guide.

Stellar performers

In a small number of cases contributions may be taken into account. The test has been allied to the test for conduct (per Baroness Hale of Richmond in Miller v Miller, McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 1 FLR 1186), ie where the disparity in the contributions of the parties to the welfare of the family are such that they would be 'inequitable to disregard', they should be considered.

See Practice Note:

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Family weekly highlights—21 November 2024

This week’s edition of Family considers the interface between property law and financial remedy in the context of bankruptcy and the role of the financial dispute resolution hearing in financial remedy proceedings. Four new flowcharts setting out the steps to be taken in applications for financial provision after overseas divorce or dissolution and applications for pension sharing orders are set out, together with details of a new webinar on AI and family law.

Exceptional reasons required to bypass FDRs (GH v GH)

Family analysis: In GH v GH, Mr Justice Peel confirmed the importance of the financial dispute resolution hearing (FDR) and that bypassing this hearing to go from first appointment to final hearing is only appropriate in exceptional circumstances. This applies even where financial positions are not fully crystallised at the time of the FDR.

Family weekly highlights—14 November 2024

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of the latest Family Procedure Rule Committee meeting minutes, the President of the Family Division’s address to the British Society of Paediatric Radiologists and the Family Justice Council’s 17th annual debate. Judgments in relation to parental orders, charging orders and overseas adoption are considered. Details of a new toolkit on Scottish family law are set out.

The interface between property law and financial remedy in the context of bankruptcy (DDR v BDR)

Family analysis: This judgment shows the court adopting a highly structured approach to the determination of questions of property law prior to the determination of a financial remedy application against a backdrop of bankruptcy proceedings, procedural and evidential confusion and limited involvement of lawyers until a late stage. It is also a user-friendly reminder of the court's approach to common intention constructive trusts and the quantification of beneficial interests in a sole legal owner case.