Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
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