Page v Page: CA 1981

In an ancillary relief application, there was enough capital to provide adequately for both husband and wife.
Held: When considering the needs and obligations of the parties a broad view could be taken: (Ormrod LJ) ‘In a case such as this ‘needs’ can be regarded as equivalent to ‘reasonable requirements’, taking into account the other factors such as age, health, length of marriage and standard of living.’ When assessing the amount of a lump sum provision under section 25 it is not legitimate to take into account the wife’s wish to be in a position to make provision by will for her adult children.


Ormrod LJ, Dunn LJ, Brandon LJ


(1981) 2 FLR 198


Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

Cited by:

CriticisedWhite v White HL 26-Oct-2000
The couple going through the divorce each had substantial farms and wished to continue farming. It had been a long marriage.
Held: Where a division of the assets of a family would satisfy the reasonable needs of either party on an ancillary . .
CitedDart v Dart CA 2-Jul-1996
A strictly mathematical approach to calculating ancillary relief can be inappropriate in large sum cases. The statutory jurisdiction has to provide for all applications for ancillary financial relief, from the poverty stricken to the . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.197916