contributions S 25(2)(f)

Question 1

What is S 25(2)(f)

Answer 1

any contributions that have been made or likely to be made to the welfare of the family

Question 2

Cases that indicate a breadwinner and a home maker will be regarded as making equal contributions unless there is a gross and obvious disparity

Answer 2

White, Miller; McFarlane

Question 3

What will inherited assets do

Answer 3

contributed non-matriominial assets may provide for justification for departure from unequal sharing- Miller

Question 4

If inherited money has been kept separate

Answer 4

if money has been kept separate from family finances, then it may be ring fenced- K v L

Question 5

What will be taken into consideration in deciding whether inherited money has been ring fenced

Answer 5

the amount of mingling

Question 6

N v F

Answer 6

could the husband extract from the courts discretion the £2 M he had at the start of the marriage. Court held has there been mingling between the assets of the individual and the assets of the family. The more mingled into one entity less likely they would be able to keep seperate.

Question 7

Sharp v Sharp

Answer 7

Married 6 years w./o children. Wife was a trader on the stock market earning considerable bonuses totalling £10 million. They kept separate bank accounts, and did not discuss finances. CA said on this the husband should get £2M out of the £7M, made of half the share of the matrimonial home. But wife kept the bulk of her assets. CA said ha HC was wrong to read he Miller case as meaning automatically equal division.

Question 8

When will business skills allow for departure from equal division

Answer 8

where they have a stellar quality

Question 9

Cowan v Cowan

Answer 9

Husband had started a business. Court gave her 25% of total assets (before decision in White) and the wife appealed (heard after White). CA: White lays down a standard of fairness not equality. The court should recognise where one party has made a significant contribution to justify unequal division (as happened here). Wife’s shared assets increased to 36% of the total.

Question 10

G v G

Answer 10

The court held that Cowan was not suitable. Once you get into who made a better contribution the courts then have to make moral judgements which they should not be doing.

Question 11

Lambert v Lambert

Answer 11

Very wealthy family. Husband had started a newspaper, made lots of money and sold the business in the late 90s for £70 million. At the time of divorce there was £20 million left. it was held the fact you are a driven workaholic business person means you are unable to contribute to the family in other ways e.g. unavailable physically and emotionally as a husband and a father. (2) it is unacceptable to view financial contribution as more important than non-financial contributions to the welfare of the family. (3) not going to get into dispute over who has made the greater contribution.

Question 12

Robertson v Robertson

Answer 12

Husband made £219 million in total assets. Court held he didn’t have special quality to deserve more than 50% of the assets. However, having said that the judge went on to award him 2/3 of the assets, with the wife awarded 1/3 of assets in a lump sum.

Question 13

Gray v work

Answer 13

Husband earnt a fortune of £140 million in just 10 years. Court held he doesn’t have any special qualities. He is a hard working husband. Decided upon a 50/50 split. CA agreed with this decision: no particular reason for him to have a larger claim over total assets than his wife.

Question 14

Cooper-Hohn v Hohn

Answer 14

At the time of divorce there was $1.5 billion left. The wife was given $50 million (1/3). This was recognition of the husband having special qualities.
Easy to demonstrate success in financial terms- being a stellar husband, but much harder to demonstrate you have special quality as a wife.
Tends to be very gendered, but would sometimes be unfair to recognise.

Question 15

Jones v Jones

Answer 15

HC made distinction between passive growth where own something at the start of the marriage and due to inflation and time, the later sum should stay with the owner. Where active growth where efforts taken over and above watching shares grow in value. This distinction was made out.

Question 16

Robertson v Robertson following jones

Answer 16

should be seen as a tool and not a rule, so should apply the checklist.

Question 17

S v S

Answer 17

husband then set up successful business. She then wanted a share, arguing that did not get divorce for 7 years by not taking to court at the time meant he had the money to set up the business. HC disagreed this was his independently created assets

Question 18

Rossi v Rossi

Answer 18

after splitting up Mrs R set up a successful business while still married, but not actually together. 20 years later husband tried to get a share of the wealth the wife had created. Court held this was not possible as wealth was after de facto end of the relationship despite still being married.

Question 19

What will there be a need to compensate for?

Answer 19

A need to compensate partner who gave up work and future earning capacity to look after the children

Question 20

SA v PA

Answer 20

When someone hasn’t worked during the marriage, it is hard to work out what you are compensating them for- too hypothetical.

Question 21

Leadbeater v Leadbeater

Answer 21

no expectation to return until children are of school age

Question 22

Launder v launder

Answer 22

24 year marriage. The wife had not worked but there had been chidlrne, Court saw her not working as a sacrifice to the marriage for which she should be compensated.