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
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
NLJ this week: Diamond rings and broken promises

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: The battle over medical report fees intensifies
Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll