Equal sharing principle meaning

Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567, [2024] All ER (D) 104 (May) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling clarifies two key dimensions of how the sharing principle is applied, a central touchstone since the House of Lords’ authorities in White v White [2000] 2 FLR 981 and Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 1 FLR 1186. In essence, the sharing principle provides that wealth built up during the marriage through the parties’ joint endeavour—whatever their respective roles—should be divided on an equal basis... Conversely, non-matrimonial property (including pre-marital assets and inheritances) falls outside the sharing exercise, though it remains available to satisfy needs where necessary. The courts have also recognised that fairness may, in some cases, warrant bringing some or all of that non-matrimonial property within the sharing principle (often referred to as matrimonialisation). In addition, where assets are hybrids—comprising both matrimonial and non-matrimonial elements—they should be apportioned unequally so that proper credit is given for the non-matrimonial...

In this issue Financial provision Public children LexTalk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New Precedent New Practice Note Updated content Useful information Financial provision Unequal division of property on divorce—the importance of the source of assets (Standish v Standish) In Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567, [2024] All ER (D) 104 (May), the Court of Appeal considered cross-appeals arising from Moor J’s first instance award of £45m to the wife from total assets of £132m. On appeal, the wife pursued an equal division (£66m), while the husband sought to pare back her award to £25m. The Court of Appeal dismissed the wife’s challenge and upheld the husband’s cross-appeal, reducing the wife’s entitlement under the sharing principle to £25m. The matter was nevertheless remitted to first instance to decide whether £25m would satisfy the wife’s needs, as Moor J had made no such evaluation. Tim Bishop KC of 1 Hare Court analyses...