Special considerations

Contributions

In most cases, an attempt to undertake a detailed analysis of the parties’ contributions will be specifically excluded by the court. The fact that one party was the breadwinner and one the homemaker should not, by itself, provide any justification for a departure from the sharing principle. Such an approach would be discriminatory, per White v White [2000] 2 FLR 981.

Only in exceptional cases will a contribution over and above that which would normally be found, financial or otherwise, be a factor.

See Practice Note: Contributions of the parties. The following Precedent letter may be sent by practitioners to their clients: Financial applications to the court—client guide.

Special contribution

In a vanishingly small fraction of cases, special contribution may be taken into account. The test has been likened to the test for conduct (per Baroness Hale of Richmond in Miller v Miller, McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 1 FLR 1186), ie where the disparity in the contributions of the parties to the welfare of the family are such that they would be 'inequitable to disregard', they should be

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

CATJ publishes updated AI guidance for judicial office holders

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (CATJ) has published updated Artificial Intelligence (AI) guidance replacing previous guidance from April 2025. The updated guidance expands the glossary of AI terms and provides enhanced warnings about bias risks in training data and AI hallucinations that generate incorrect information. It strengthens confidentiality advice, reminding judicial office holders not to enter private information into public AI tools and establishing reporting procedures for inadvertent data disclosures. The guidance applies to all judicial office holders, clerks, judicial assistants, legal advisers and support staff under the Lady Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals.

Family weekly highlights—30 October 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes details of the House of Commons Justice Committee’s plan to examine the reform of the Family Court. Recent judgments on the determination of parental alienation and an application for permission to relocate internationally with children amid domestic abuse allegations are also considered together with procedural irregularities as the basis of an appeal, the making of final care orders at an issues resolution hearing and notification of a child’s birth and adoption plans to wider family members under the inherent jurisdiction.

Person at risk of violence order fee to be scrapped

The Ministry of Justice has confirmed that from November 2025, the person at risk of violence (PARV) order fee will be removed, meaning that survivors of violence and domestic abuse will no longer have to pay a court fee of £318 to ensure their abuser cannot locate them via public records. A PARV order is a legal route to prevent personal details from being published. Individuals must demonstrate that disclosure of their address would reasonably expect to lead to violence. Currently, to apply for a PARV order, individuals must complete an application form which is accompanied by a witness statement, attend court and pay the court fee. They do not have to prove that they have experienced violence, only that they reasonably believe they may. For women fleeing domestic abuse, having the peace of mind that their abuser cannot search public records to find their new address is invaluable, yet the cost is a barrier to many. This announcement means the cost will no longer be an obstacle to their safety. The abolition of this court fee is the latest measure in the government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls within a decade and a key part of the Plan for Change to protect victims and restore faith in the justice system.

Court makes best interests decisions re pregnancy and contraception for woman with complex mental health presentation (KP (Termination of Pregnancy))

Private Client analysis: The Court of Protection held that a 19-year-old woman with cerebral palsy, autism and multiple personas lacked capacity to make decisions about pregnancy termination and contraception. Applying the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) framework, the court found termination and contraceptive implant were in her best interests given her deteriorating mental health and self-harm risks. Notable for practitioners, despite unanimous agreement among parties, the Trust sought court approval rather than relying on MCA 2005, ss 5 and 6, demonstrating how judicial oversight can help preserve therapeutic relationships in complex medical cases. Practical implications written by Sophie Caseley of Garden Court Chambers.