Foster v Foster: CA 16 Apr 2003

The marriage had been short, there were no children, both parties were working, and each could support themselves providing themselves with accomodation. The wife had successfully appealed a finding of the district judge for an equal distribution. The husband sought to restore it.
Held: The district judge’s findings were not so wrong (if at all) as to have allowed the appeal by the wife. The principles on such appeals were now the same as for any other appeal. There were no special principle to be applied in short marriages. In considering the contributions made, the court could include not only direct financial contributions, but also the parts played in acquiring and realising assets, and the fact that each had done what they could. The court should always return to and work from the words of the section. Reasons for departing from equal shares were not present here, and the original judgement was restored.
Peter Gibson, Chadwick, Hale LJJ
[2003] EWCA Civ 565, Times 02-May-2003, Gazette 03-Jul-2003, [2003] 2 FLR 299
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25(2)(d) 25(2)(f)
England and Wales
AppliedMadden v UDC Finance Limited and others PC 30-Oct-1997
(New Zealand) The company issued a debenture to secure the funds for the purchase of machinery, but the debenture was not at first dated. It was submitted that the addition of the dates changed the nature of the loan and was ineffective being . .
CitedLambert v Lambert CA 14-Nov-2002
The parties appealed an order for the division of the family’s 20 million pound fortune on divorce. The husband argued that his special contribution to the creation of the wealth meant that he should receive a greater share.
Held: The Act gave . .
CitedWhite v White CA 21-Jun-2001
A family had occupied a council house. They purchased the property under the right to buy scheme, with financial assistance from a son, who having paid the mortgage was to allow his parents to live in the house, but then it was to become his. The . .

Cited by:
CitedMiller v Miller; M v M (Short Marriage: Clean Break) CA 29-Jul-2005
The parties contested ancillary relief where there had been only a short marriage, but where here were considerable family assets available for division. The wife sought to rely upn the husband’s behaviour to counter any argument as to the shortness . .
CitedMiller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane HL 24-May-2006
Fairness on Division of Family Capital
The House faced the question of how to achieve fairness in the division of property following a divorce. In the one case there were substantial assets but a short marriage, and in the other a high income, but low capital.
Held: The 1973 Act . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 April 2021; Ref: scu.181822