References: Unreported, 20 December 2001
Coram: McLaughlin J
The court considered the approach to the evaluation of contributions in ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce where there were substantial assets. McLaughlin J said: ‘In the course of adducing evidence before me counsel sought to tempt me with a bait of this kind. He led evidence, and relied upon it in his closing submissions, that the husband worked very long hours getting out of bed at 6.00am to be at work by 7.00am. His work did not finish until late in the evening as he carried on his working day by supervising Y limited and the other business premises owned by the company. I accept all of that evidence as true, but to concentrate on that and fail to recognise that, whilst he toiled at work on company business, Mrs M from early in the morning was getting the children ready for school, taking them there, running the home during the day, collecting them after school, cooking and cleaning, nurturing them by ferrying them to social, sporting and recreational activities, supervising homework and tutoring them when required, would be to be guilty of the very kind of discrimination warned against by Lord Nicholls. An example of the value of the life’s work of Mrs M can be seen today in the accomplishments and personalities of their children. These are the abiding rewards of her labour of love rather than the transient rewards in the form of money produced by the labour of the husband. In the context of this family’s life these admirable qualities of both parties are to be considered of equal value. Indeed the words of Lord Nicholls might almost have been written to describe the respective roles of Mr and Mrs M.’
This case cites:
- See Also – Maginn -v- Maginn FdNI (Bailii, [2001] NIFam 15)
. .
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Shan Elizabeth Rose Lambert -v- Harry Paul Lambert CA (Times 27-Nov-02, Bailii, [2002] EWCA Civ 1685, [2003] 1 FLR 139, [2003] Fam 103, [2003] 2 WLR 631, [2003] 4 All ER 342, [2002] 3 FCR 673, [2003] Fam Law 16, Independent 21-Nov-02)
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 . .