The following Family guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
The House of Lords' decision in White v White significantly changed the general principles on which ancillary relief (financial order) cases are determined.
Before White, awards in big-money cases were based largely on reasonable requirements. A party would receive such capital and income as was necessary to enable them to meet their reasonable needs. In cases where there was surplus income and capital after such needs had been met, one party could be left with a considerably greater share of the wealth. Significant time and costs were consequently spent arguing over what amounted to reasonable needs in a particular case and many were left with a sense of an unfair outcome.
The judgment in White made fairness the overriding objective in ancillary relief proceedings (now financial order proceedings), judged against what the House of Lords called ‘the yardstick of equality’. This meant that in all future cases the aim was to achieve a fair outcome. To decide if a result was fair, consideration had to be given to the outcome on an equalisation of the resources. The House of Lords' intention was to put an end to discrimination between the breadwinner and homemaker in their respective roles. Claims were no longer to be limited by reasonable need.
The House of Lords in
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Take a free trial
0330 161 1234