A question on re-attribution: does dissipation really have to be wanton?

Stephen Glover, Spire Barristers, Leeds

The article questions whether post-separation financial dissipation should qualify for re-attribution only when it is “wanton,” arguing that this requirement may unfairly leave one former spouse bearing the cost of the other’s unilateral reckless spending.

Where spending can be categorised as being for an improper purpose or clearly extravagant it proposes a simpler presumption that such spending is added back unless the spender proves that it was justifiable or occurred without recklessness.

The article maintains that later case law interpretations (Vaughan and MAP) have converted a practical fairness rule into a more difficult inquiry into motive, thereby favouring the spender and increasing litigation risk for the innocent spouse. It concludes that restoring the approach associated with Martin and Norris would provide a more straightforward and commonsense basis for re-attribution.