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

President of the Family Division issues revised guidance on public law children cases with an international element

The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has released updated guidance on public law children cases with an international element. The revised guidance replaces the previous 2014 guidance on the International Child Abduction and Contact Unit (ICACU). It provides practitioners with guidance on obtaining information from other jurisdictions to assist the courts. While acknowledging that the 26-week timeframe may not always be achievable in such matters, the guidance aims to streamline the process of acquiring international information. The document, approved by Lord Justice Moylan and the Senior Master, also directs practitioners to the Family Procedure Rules 2010, Pt 12 and the Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (International Obligations) (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2010, SI 2010/1898.

Courts and Tribunals Judiciary publishes updated guidance on transfer of proceedings

The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has issued updated guidance on the transfer of proceedings under Articles 8 and 9 of the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (the 1996 Hague Convention). This revision reflects changes to the legal framework following the UK's exit from the EU, replaces previous 2016 guidance and outlines comprehensive procedures for both outgoing and incoming requests for a transfer of jurisdiction. The guidance covers the mandatory register for all transfer requests, clarification of the roles of Central Authorities and specific instructions for courts and parties. The guidance emphasises that incoming requests must be determined by the High Court and provides detailed requirements for information to be included in the register.

Designation of local authority in care proceedings based on ordinary residence (Calderdale MBC v Cheshire EBC and others)

Local Government analysis: On 12 July 2024, Cheshire East Borough Council (Cheshire) issued proceedings seeking a care order (and an interim care order) in relation to a child who had been born prematurely in Manchester the same day. The child’s mother had a long history of engagement with the Cheshire authority’s children services in relation to two older half-siblings of the child. This work followed a myriad of issues including domestic abuse, sexual exploitation and anti-social behaviour (including alcohol and drug misuse). On 23 August 2024, Recorder Shaw made an order designating Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (Calderdale) as the relevant local authority within the care order. Calderdale appealed that decision (on the basis that the judge had erred in law and fact) with Cheshire, both parents and the child’s guardian all opposing. Permission to appeal was granted by Lord Justice King. in the Court of Appeal, the lead judgment was given by Mr Justice Cobb, dismissing the appeal and finding that Recorder Shaw had been entitled to reach the conclusions he did and to make the order as he had done. Written by Clive Adams, partner at Birketts LLP.

Imputing Parliament’s intention as to void or voidable divorce orders (Lord Chancellor v 79 Divorced Couples)

Family analysis: This case involved an application by the Lord Chancellor under section 55(1)(c) of the Family Law Act 1986 and the inherent jurisdiction, in 79 divorce cases, for declarations that the marriages no longer existed as of the date the final divorce orders were made. The application was necessary after a glitch in the online court portal allowed the applicants to start an application for a divorce one day earlier than legislation permitted (the relevant time period under section 3 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) being not before ‘the expiration of the period of one year from the date of the marriage’). The High Court considered whether the final divorce orders were voidable or void. It was determined that the orders were voidable and, unless any of the 158 individuals involved sought to argue otherwise before the end of January 2025, the orders were legally valid. Vikkie Chetcuti-Gee, associate solicitor at Burgess Mee Family Law examines the issues.