AR v AR (ancillary relief: inheritance) [2011] EWHC 2717 (Fam), [2011] All ER (D) 241 (Oct)
In assessing a spouse’s income needs, in particular for the purposes of determining what income fund would be awarded, the analysis was a broad one. The court’s task when addressing that factor was not to arrive at a mathematically exact calculation of what constituted an applicant’s future income needs. It was to determine the notional annual income which, in the circumstances of the case, it would be fair for the spouse to receive. When justified by the circumstances of the case, a flexible application of the Duxbury calcuation in the manner, for example, identified in Dharamshi v Dharamshi [2001] 1 FCR 492, [2000] All ER (D) 2121, would better achieve justice with sufficient predictability than a more narrow approach.
