header-logo header-logo

High earners & sacrificed careers

04 June 2020 / Stacey Nevin
Issue: 7889 / Categories: Features , Family , Divorce
printer mail-detail
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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll