Image from Google Jackets

Pamela Rosemary White v Martin Edward John White

Language: English Publication details: 2000Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2001] AC 596 (HL), 26 October 2000. Considers the fair division of property in divorce. M appealed and P cross-appealed from a CA judgment that increased P's lump sum provision from one-fifth to two-fifths of the parties' total assets. Both M and P were farmers. The original decision had been to satisfy P's housing and financial needs and allow M to take sole control of the farm business to continue farming. P's wish to have enough money to buy a farm of her own was considered unreasonable. "Held": Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed. The original judge had erred. There is no justification to conclude that the assets of one party become immaterial once the financial needs of the other are satisfied.

[2001] AC 596 (HL), 26 October 2000. Considers the fair division of property in divorce. M appealed and P cross-appealed from a CA judgment that increased P's lump sum provision from one-fifth to two-fifths of the parties' total assets. Both M and P were farmers. The original decision had been to satisfy P's housing and financial needs and allow M to take sole control of the farm business to continue farming. P's wish to have enough money to buy a farm of her own was considered unreasonable. "Held": Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed. The original judge had erred. There is no justification to conclude that the assets of one party become immaterial once the financial needs of the other are satisfied.