Preston v Preston: CA 1982

The court set out a series of principles applicable in ancillary relief cases where the resources exceeded the strict needs of the parties, including that the court should not make allowance for a spouse’s desire to be able to leave a sum to her children by her will, and ‘. . . the word ‘needs’ in section 25(1)(b) in relation to the other provisions in the subsection is equivalent to ‘reasonable requirements’, having regard to the other factors and the objective set by the concluding words of the subsection . . .’


Ormrod LJ


[1982] Fam 17


Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25(1)(b)


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWhite 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 . .
MentionedMiller 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: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.197919