header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
23 August 2016 / Margaret Hatwood
Issue: 7715 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

An appropriate standard of living?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7715_hatwood

Margaret Hatwood explores the assessment of needs by the court to provide a sufficient standard of living
  • Divorce claims should be adjudicated on the base of “need” rather than “sharing”.
  • Parties cannot expect to replicate their previous standard of living going forwards but the basis of the award bears sufficient correlation to that standard of living.
  • The first consideration in any assessment of needs must be the welfare of any minor child or children of the family.

As family lawyers know, one of the factors that the court has to have regard to in deciding how to exercise its powers under ss 23, 24, 24A, 24B and 24E of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) is the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage.

There has been a trend over recent years for the courts to be less generous in having regard to the standard of living. Indeed, Mostyn J said in the case of SS v NS [2014] EWHC 4183

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll