Dharamshi v Dharamshi: CA 5 Dec 2000

On a divorce where there were fairly substantial sums at issue, the two parties argued for different bases for calculation of the wife’s interests, either her reasonable needs according to Duxbury tables, or otherwise to reflect the particular facts.
Held: The Ogden tables should not be preferred in matrimonial proceedings. In substantial asset cases two principles apply: there must be no gender discrimination in applying the statutory criteria, and equality should be departed from only with good reason. The need to articulate reasons for departing from equality would help the parties and the court to focus on the need to ensure the absence of discrimination, and the ceiling of reasonable requirements must be rejected. Appeal dismissed.


Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Schiemann, And Lord Justice Thorpe


[2000] EWCA Civ 305




Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 24


England and Wales


CitedWells v Wells; Thomas v Brighton Health Authority; etc HL 16-Jul-1998
In each of three cases, the plaintiffs had suffered serious injury. They complained that the court had made a substantial reduction of their damages award for loss of future earnings and the costs of future care.
Held: The appeals succeeded. . .
CitedVicary v Vicary 1992
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147338