Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane
Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane
- 2006
[2006] UKHL 24, 24 May 2006. Considers two divorce cases where the judgments were influenced by "White v White" ([2001] AC 596 (HL), (2001) 1 All ER 1), which ruled that there is no justification to conclude that the assets of one party become immaterial once the financial needs of the other are satisfied. In "McFarlane", W appealed against the replacement of a joint lives order by a five-year order by the CA. Capital assets were insufficient to enable an immediate clean break, but there was a substantial excess of income for two households. W had given up a highly paid career to care for the children. In "Miller", H and W appealed against the division of property by the CAfollowing the breakdown of their short marriage. H increased his wealth significantly during the marriage, the matrimonial property was of great value, and the couple enjoyed a very high standard of living. "Held": McFarlane's original joint lives order restored. Compensation was necessary as W's earning capacity had been greatly impacted by giving up a highly paid career to care for children. Mr Miller's appeal dismissed and Mrs Miller's allowed. Owing to the unusual aspects of the case, the awarded sum was appropriate. The court should be guided by the three principles of need, compensation and sharing when making a financial award; there could be no hard rule about equal sharing.
MILLER V MILLER
WHITE V WHITE
[2006] UKHL 24, 24 May 2006. Considers two divorce cases where the judgments were influenced by "White v White" ([2001] AC 596 (HL), (2001) 1 All ER 1), which ruled that there is no justification to conclude that the assets of one party become immaterial once the financial needs of the other are satisfied. In "McFarlane", W appealed against the replacement of a joint lives order by a five-year order by the CA. Capital assets were insufficient to enable an immediate clean break, but there was a substantial excess of income for two households. W had given up a highly paid career to care for the children. In "Miller", H and W appealed against the division of property by the CAfollowing the breakdown of their short marriage. H increased his wealth significantly during the marriage, the matrimonial property was of great value, and the couple enjoyed a very high standard of living. "Held": McFarlane's original joint lives order restored. Compensation was necessary as W's earning capacity had been greatly impacted by giving up a highly paid career to care for children. Mr Miller's appeal dismissed and Mrs Miller's allowed. Owing to the unusual aspects of the case, the awarded sum was appropriate. The court should be guided by the three principles of need, compensation and sharing when making a financial award; there could be no hard rule about equal sharing.
MILLER V MILLER
WHITE V WHITE