Just desserts?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

22 September 2011 / Claire Sanders

Issue: 7482 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Damages , Personal injury

printer

mail-detail

Claire Sanders examines the division of personal injury compensation following a marital split

It is well established that damages recovered by one party to a marriage in a personal injury claim should be taken into account by the court when assessing the financial position of the parties to the marriage and the provision that should be made in ancillary relief proceedings.

Assessing need

In the leading case of Wagstaff v Wagstaff [1992] 1 All ER 275, [1992] 1 FCR 305 Butler Sloss LJ noted that while the reasons for the availability of the capital in the hands of one spouse, together with the size of the award are relevant factors in all the circumstances of Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973), s 25, such capital is not “sacrosanct, nor any part of it secured against the application of the other spouse”. She went on to state that there might be instances where the sum awarded was small and was specifically for pain and suffering in which it would be unsuitable

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

Just desserts?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Claire Sanders examines the division of personal injury compensation following a marital split

It is well established that damages recovered by one party to a marriage in a personal injury claim should be taken into account by the court when assessing the financial position of the parties to the marriage and the provision that should be made in ancillary relief proceedings.

Assessing need

In the leading case of Wagstaff v Wagstaff [1992] 1 All ER 275, [1992] 1 FCR 305 Butler Sloss LJ noted that while the reasons for the availability of the capital in the hands of one spouse, together with the size of the award are relevant factors in all the circumstances of Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973), s 25, such capital is not “sacrosanct, nor any part of it secured against the application of the other spouse”. She went on to state that there might be instances where the sum awarded was small and was specifically for pain and suffering in which it would be unsuitable

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS

Public Accounts Committee warn of ‘extinction’ risk for legal aid

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned

NLJ this week: The insider returns

Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome

NLJ this week: Drawing the line on contempt

After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights

NLJ this week: Stop and search by the numbers

The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains

NLJ this week: Looking back on the prorogation that never was

Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously

back-to-top-scroll