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

MoJ releases evaluation report on Pathfinder pilot scheme

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has published an evaluation report examining the Pathfinder Courts pilot scheme under Family Procedure Rules 2010, PD 36Z. The pilot scheme, which began in February 2022, aims to replace the Child Arrangements Programme with a revised process to improve outcomes in private family law proceedings.The report analyses implementation in Dorset and North Wales, covering operational effectiveness and comparative costs. Based on participants’ reflections on the implementation of the Pathfinder pilot scheme in Dorset and North Wales, the research team have identified key policy, practice and further research considerations to inform the implementation of the Pathfinder pilot in other areas.

Family weekly highlights—27 March 2025

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of a new protocol on the disclosure of information between coroners and the Family Court in cases involving fatality. Analysis of a High Court decision on unlawful surrogacy arrangements is also set out, together with notable aspects of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Spring Statement, analysis of recent judgments on whether a Mesher order was appropriate, forced marriage protection orders and appeals made out of time. A new Practice Note on the citation of authorities in the family courts and a new flowchart on applications under Part 18 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 are also set out.

High Court warns against unlawful surrogacy arrangements (Re Z (Unlawful Foreign Surrogacy—Adoption)

Family analysis: An unusual predicament faced a couple in this case where they sought to be recognised as the parents of two children after an unlawful foreign surrogacy. This decision brought into sharp focus the legal and ethical dilemmas that arise when intended parents embark on illegal surrogacy arrangements in a foreign country. A significant feature in this case was also that the applicants were in their sixties and had not given sufficient consideration to the impact on the children of their age. Ultimately the only orders that were appropriate in the circumstances were adoption orders which were granted by the court. Tahmina Rahman, barrister at 1|GC Family Law Chambers, considers the issues.

Disclosure of information between coroners and the Family Court in cases involving fatality

The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, and the Chief Coroner, Her Honour Judge Alexia Durran, have published a new protocol and good practice model the— 2025 Protocol and Good Practice Model: Disclosure of information between coroners and the Family Court in cases involving fatality which takes effect from 24 March 2025 in cases involving the death of a child or adult where the circumstances of the death may be relevant to, and/or have the potential to inform, the assessment of risk concerning the subject children in family proceedings. The protocol is a guide to best practice for Family Court judges and coroners where there are parallel proceedings. It provides guidance on the flow of information between the two jurisdictions, and on dealing with requests for testing of the deceased to establish paternity. It also explains how Family Court judges and coroners can work together to seek expedited post-mortem examination evidence, in cases where care and welfare decisions for surviving children cannot be made until the cause of the deceased’s death is determined.