Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
View all articles

Ashley Murray - Guidelines on Compensation: VP v JP

Sep 29, 2018, 17:28 PM
Slug : ashley-murray-guidelines-on-compensation-vp-v-jp
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 28, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86691

Ashley Murray, Barrister, Oriel Chambers.

Since Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 1 FLR 1186 there have been a number of High Court decisions, which have thrown further light on the 'incremental approach' to compensation upon a divorce distribution. Both CR v CR [2008] 1 FLR 323, Bodey J and P v P [2007] EWHC 2877 (Fam), [2008] FLR (forthcoming), Moylan J, have, already, received commentary at March [2008] Fam Law 198 and July [2008] Fam Law 614 respectively, so the reader will be familiar with the judgments in question. However, instructive though those cases might be, both were decided before two decisions, which are now reported and which, it is suggested, have, actually, now moved on the jurisprudence in this area - albeit to some practitioners, not in a desired direction.

In both VB v JP [2008] EWHC 112 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 742 and B v B (Ancillary Relief) [2008] EWCA Civ 543, [2008] 1 FCR 613 the President of the Family Division presided. In VB v JP the President laid down guidance as to the approach to claims of compensation for 'relationship generated disadvantage' and in B v B, the President sat in the Court of Appeal where Hughes and Wall LJJ gave the leading judgments with which the President, it is suggested, surprisingly concurred. In B v B, it appears that the Court of Appeal re-introduced the concept of the 'yardstick of equality' as a cross check to the court's 'fair and non discriminatory approach', rejecting in the process that there existed any overriding 'principle of equality', which had been most commentators' conclusion of the outcome of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Charman v Charman (No 4) [2007] EWCA Civ 503, [2007] 1 FLR 1246, in which, of course, the President, himself, gave the leading judgment. For the purposes of this present article, however, it is VB v JP which is now considered in the light of the President's guidance to approaching compensation claims.

For the full article, see August [2008] Family Law journal.

Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from