header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 June 2020 / Stacey Nevin
Issue: 7889 / Categories: Features , Family , Divorce
printer mail-detail

High earners & sacrificed careers

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
22068
Stacey Nevin reports on the nuances of a successful appeal for ‘relationship generated disadvantage’
  • Looks at RC v JC, where the wife claimed for relationship generated disadvantage.
  • Claims for compensation are loss-related not needs-related.

In the recently reported case of RC v JC [2020] EWHC 466 (Fam), the respondent wife successfully pursued a claim for compensation for her ‘relationship generated disadvantage’. Giving judgment, Mr Justice Moor accepted ‘that it is unusual to find significant relationship generated disadvantage that may lead to compensation’ but was ‘clear that this is one such case’.

 

Principle of compensation

 

The principle of compensation was firmly established and last successfully used in the 2006 case of Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24. Since then, there have been no reported cases where the principle has been argued successfully, until RC v JC.

In McFarlane, the House of Lords identified three principles to guide the court when trying to achieve a fair outcome for the parties: needs (generously

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