header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
21 June 2007 / Nicholas E Starks
Issue: 7278 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

Fair shares?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Does Charman v Charman mean farewell to the yardstick of equality? asks Nicholas Starks

Charman v Charman [2006] EWHC 1879 (Fam), [2006] All ER (D) 32 (Aug), a decision of Mr Justice Coleridge, was the first reported case to consider the ramifications of the House of Lords’ decision in Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 3 All ER 1. It also involved the largest reported award (£48m) in an ancillary relief case. Central to the case was the issue of “stellar contributions”: given a 27-year marriage—to which the wife had fully contributed—and huge assets—£131m, generated by the singular talent of the husband—should the court depart from equality of division to reflect the husband’s wealth generation and, if so, how far?

The appeal of Coleridge J’s decision was handed down on 24 May 2007 ([2007] EWCA Civ 503, [2007] All ER (D) 425 (May)), on the anniversary of the Lords’ decision in Miller; McFarlane. The Court of Appeal has abandoned the pretence of a yardstick of equality and heralded in a

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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

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