How are courts likely to divvy up the spoils of a failed relationship in 2008? asks Nick Starks
Vaughan v Vaughan [2007] EWCA Civ 1085, [2007] All ER (D) 43 (Nov) is a welcome and much needed example of the application by the Court of Appeal of big money ancillary relief principles to a more conventional divorce—involving a house, pensions and some savings—rather than one of huge assets or “stellar” contributions.
It is trite law that in considering making orders for financial provision, the district judge is charged with an inquiry into the size of the parties’ resources and to identify factors which might justify a departure from equality of division of them—described by Sir Mark Potter P in Charman v Charman [2007] EWCA Civ 503, [2007] All ER (D) 425 (May) as the “sharing principle”: “Property should be shared in equal proportions unless there is good reason to depart from such proportions; departure is not from the principle but takes place within the principle.” This inquiry, when balanced with
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
