header-logo header-logo

31 May 2007
Issue: 7275 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

FAMILY LAW

Charman v Charman [2007] EWCA Civ 503, [2007] All ER (D) 425 (May)

In ancillary relief proceedings where the court was carrying out the statutory balancing exercise under s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, consideration of the “sharing principle” is no longer required to be postponed until the end of the statutory balancing exercise. The principle is that property should be shared equally in the absence of a good reason for departure from equality. The inquiry is always in two stages: computation and distribution.

A court should first consider the matters set out in s 25(2)(a)—the property, income (including earning capacity) and other financial resources which the parties have and are likely to have in the foreseeable future. Likely future income always has to be appraised. The three main principles which together form the second stage of the inquiry—need, compensation and sharing—have to be applied in the light of the size and nature of all the computed resources.

The principle of need requires consideration of the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities of the parties, of

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll