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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles

Sandra Davis: Equal Sharing: A Judicial Gloss Too Far?

Sep 29, 2018, 17:20 PM
Slug : sandra-davis-equal-sharing-a-judicial-gloss-too-far
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 10, 2008, 11:02 AM
Article ID : 89257

Sandra Davis, Partner, Mishcon de Reya

In McFarlane, Mrs McFarlane had had a promising career as a city solicitor. During her second pregnancy, 13 years prior to their divorce, she and Mr McFarlane agreed that she would give up her career to become a full-time mother. Following the breakdown of their marriage, their assets were divided equally in accordance with the Law Lords guidance in White. The issue that the couple litigated to the House of Lords was the quantum and term of the maintenance to be paid by Mr McFarlane to Mrs McFarlane out of his annual net income of 750,000. The House of Lords upheld the first instance decision that Mrs McFarlane should receive maintenance of 250,000 per annum until she died or remarried. Justifying an award that exceeded Mrs McFarlanes needs, the House of Lords said she was entitled to compensation to redress the significant prospective economic discrepancies that arose because of the way the parties had conducted their marriage. Mrs McFarlanes entitlement arose because, having given up work to care for the family, the potential fruits of her career had been lost forever.

In this article Sandra Davis argues that as a result of the decision in McFarlane, a working wife suffers the relative detriment of being compelled to work until her retirement. By contrast, the non-working wife is rewarded for not working (and therefore contributing less than the working wife) with a maintenance award including a compensatory element. This, she argues, operates as a disincentive against the non-working recipient entering the employment market.

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

To log on to Family Law Online or to request a free trial click here.

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