The couple had two children aged 10 and 6 and the question was whether the wife should have a house which cost pounds 210,000, leaving the husband without enough to buy a property of his own, or a house costing pounds 135,000, leaving the husband pounds 75,000 to buy a property of his own.
Held: When apportioning property where children in family, both parents are to be provided with a home if at all possible: ‘In all these cases it is one of the paramount considerations, in applying the section 25 criteria, to endeavour to stretch what is available to cover the need of each for a home, particularly where there are young children involved. Obviously the primary carer needs whatever is available to make the main home for the children, but it is of importance, albeit it is of lesser importance, that the other parent should have a home of his own where the children can enjoy their contact time with him. Of course there are cases where there is not enough to provide a home for either. Of course there are cases where there is only enough to provide one. But in any case where there is, by stretch and a degree of risk-taking, the possibility of a division to enable both to rehouse themselves, that is an exceptionally important consideration and one which will almost invariably have a decisive impact on outcome.’
Thorpe LJ
Times 15-Oct-1997, [1998] 1 FLR 53
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Piglowska v Piglowski HL 24-Jun-1999
No Presumption of House for both Parties
When looking to the needs of parties in a divorce, there is no presumption that both parties are to be left able to purchase alternative homes. The order of sub-clauses in the Act implies nothing as to their relative importance. Courts should be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.83258