header-logo header-logo

Non-matrimonial property: an alternative equality?

29 March 2018 / Rebecca Dziobon , Laura Hughes
Issue: 7787 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail
nlj_7787_hughes_0

Laura Hughes & Rebecca Dziobon provide an overview on the scope & nature of non-matrimonial property

  • If parties can prove that they have made an unmatched contribution they may be able to ringfence ‘non-matrimonial’ capital to be divided either in part or excluded entirely.

Practitioners are all too aware that there is no accepted definition of ‘non-matrimonial property’. This can become the focal point of negotiations where an equal division of capital is challenged. The debate starts once ‘needs’ have been met and there is surplus capital available to share. Reported decisions tend to relate to the more extreme ‘big money’ cases. However, the principles filter down to everyday cases and this article considers the different types of arguments for seeking a departure from equality.

Under s 25(2)(f) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 the court must consider the ‘contributions’ of the parties when assessing the fair division of assets. The starting (and usually end) point is that equal contributions to a long marital partnership should mean that the ‘fruits’

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll