The court heard an application for ancillary relief in a divorce. The family assets were pounds 6M. The husband was a successful city solicitor. Counsel contended that for various reasons his financial accumulations during the course of his professional life amounted to a special contribution: but on behalf of the wife it was submitted that he was no more than a typical successful City solicitor.
Held: The judge noted that the wife had also succumbed to the temptation to play up her own contribution, but rejected the submission for the husband.
Mr Peter Hughes QC said: ‘I have considerable sympathy for the husband, who has been highly successful and worked extremely hard over many years and no doubt feels that he has created the wealth that exists today. I am unable to accept, though, that his contribution calls for special recognition as in the cases of Cowan and Lambert.
It is not easy to define what may amount to a ‘stellar’ or really special contribution, but rather like the elephant, it is not difficult to spot when you come across it.
In Cowan Mance LJ referred to the relevance of the expectations of the parties. In my judgment that is an important consideration. What did the parties anticipate when they set out on their married life together? To what extent have those expectations been realised or have their lives taken a course neither of them would ever have expected and led to riches they would never have contemplated? That was the case in Cowan. It was also so in Lambert. In both cases the success of the marriage far exceeded the parties joint expectations.
That cannot be said here. The husband was already a qualified solicitor with a well-regarded city firm when the parties married. He was set on the career that he has pursued successfully, as both he and the wife hoped for. He has had to work hard and it has not always been easy. The rewards have though been substantial, as no doubt they had hoped they would be, and over the years he has had the full support of the wife in her role of looking after the home and family.’
Mr Peter Hughes QC
[2002] 2 FLR 1021
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Cowan v Cowan CA 14-May-2001
When considering the division of matrimonial assets following a divorce, the court’s duty was, within the context of the rules set down by the Act, to impose a fair settlement according to the circumstances. Courts should be careful not to make . .
Cited by:
Cited – Lambert 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.235254
