RegulationFeb 25 2020

How the courts will apportion assets of a divorcing couple

  • Describe some of the challenges the courts face when dividing up assets of divorcing couples
  • Explain some of the problems around maintenance payments from income
  • Describe how the courts resolve these problems
  • Describe some of the challenges the courts face when dividing up assets of divorcing couples
  • Explain some of the problems around maintenance payments from income
  • Describe how the courts resolve these problems
pfs-logo
cisi-logo
CPD
Approx.30min
pfs-logo
cisi-logo
CPD
Approx.30min
twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
pfs-logo
cisi-logo
CPD
Approx.30min
How the courts will apportion assets of a divorcing couple

Lord Justice Thorpe said he could see "no possible reason" why only the wife should have to spend her capital on costs of living, and Mr Justice Bodey expressed the view that for the wife to have to spend her capital on living costs, when the husband would not have to, did not seem fair after a long marriage. 

Several years later, in Vaughan v Vaughan [2010] EWCA Civ 349, the court of Appeal set out a flexible approach.

Lord Justice Wilson stated "it is impossible to be categorical about what the law expects in this area", and went on to note that for a couple approaching retirement, who may have accumulated significant capital through savings from income, the distinction between capital and income is likely to be treated by the court as more fluid. 

The Court of Appeal considered the issue again in 2018 in Waggott.

The wife was in her late 40s and had given up work early in the 20 year marriage to support the husband's career.

The wife's total assets following the capital division were £9.76m.

The husband successfully argued that the wife should have to use some of her sharing award to meet her ongoing needs

The trial judge had ordered the husband to pay maintenance equal to the wife's income needs of £175,000 per annum for life. 

On appeal, the husband successfully argued that the wife should have to use some of her sharing award to meet her ongoing needs.

The Court of Appeal accepted that it would be reasonable for the wife to amortise around 10 per cent of her sharing award, whilst reiterating that a flexible approach to this question is necessary. 

In 2019, there were two conflicting High Court decisions. 

O'Dwyer v O'Dwyer [2019] EWHC 1838 concerned a marriage of almost thirty years which had produced four children; the parties were now in their early 60s.

The sharing of the parties' assets left the wife with £3m; after meeting housing and other costs she would have around £1.7m.

The husband would continue to earn a substantial income for a few years. 

In line with Vaughan and Waggott, Mr Justice Francis set out that: "Whether or not a spouse should be required to amortise their capital will be case specific".

In this case, he concluded that it would be fair for the wife not to have to amortise her capital for the remaining years of the husband's employment; thereafter she would need to do so.

In CB v KB [2019] EWFC 78, Mr Justice Mostyn took a different approach.

This was a marriage of almost 20 years (including pre-marital cohabitation); the husband was 41 and the wife 45.

PAGE 3 OF 5