The way the courts in England and Wales divide assets when couples divorce is the subject of much debate. Do assets get divided 50:50? And if property is not split in this way, how do divorcing couples know what a likely financial settlement might look like?
In 2024 the Law Commission published a report containing radical proposals for reform, which we have discussed previously. While some reform of the law is likely, this will be some way off. In the meantime, those getting divorced and their advisors must act within the current framework. Here we look at the overarching ‘sharing principle’, how it is applied in practice and when this important starting point may be departed from. In particular we highlight one area in which the principle of sharing assets equally won’t apply, with reference to the case of Vince v Vince from January 2025. There the court looked at how assets accumulated post-separation should be divided in the financial settlement.
The Sharing Principle
Unlike judges in many other countries, judges in England and Wales have a wide discretion when it comes to dividing property and ensuring that any settlement is fair and meets the needs of the spouses. While this approach allows flexibility in a sphere of law that often features complex, unique family dynamics, critics argue that it also produces a degree of uncertainty for the parties involved.
The starting point for financial remedy cases is that matrimonial assets should be shared equally unless there is good reason not to. For example, where an unequal split is the only way the needs of one spouse can be met or where the marriage was short and there are no children to consider.
It’s important to note that the sharing principle only applies to matrimonial assets. If there are more assets than needed to meet the parties needs the courts will look at where the assets came from. Non-matrimonial assets acquired before or after marriage will not as of right come under the sharing rule.
Are Post- Separation Assets Divided Equally?
Vince v Vince (2025) illustrates how courts can depart from the principle that assets should be divided equally when the assets involved were acquired before or after a marriage. When it comes down to it, the court has a wide discretion to depart from equality – taking into account the factors listed in s25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973.
The case involved Mr. and Ms. Vince who were divorcing after a marriage of 20 years (although the precise length of the marital relationship was disputed). During the marriage Mr. Vince achieved significant commercial success in the green energy sector. In court Mrs. Vince was described by her lawyers as a ‘homemaker’, bringing up the couple’s son and offering support to the wider family. Following separation in 2022 a period of 34 months elapsed until the financial remedy application was heard. In that time the value of the company founded by Mr. Vince increased substantially. The wife sought to downplay the husband’s involvement in this growth, whereas the husband pointed to the success of key business strategies he had adopted as the reason for the increased value of the business. That’s to say, because he was solely responsible for the post-separation success of the business, Mr Vince argued that his ex-wife should not share in the increase in value that had been ascribed to the business since the point of separation.
The judge accepted the husband’s argument to an extent – the husband had played some part in the business’ growth, but wider external economic factors were of no less importance in the success of the business post-separation. Taking this into account the judge made a final award, departing from the equality principle, crediting the husband with an element of post-separation endeavour (albeit to a lesser degree than he had hoped). The final award can be summarised as follows:
- Total asset base £120 million
- Non-matrimonial assets retained by husband £29million
- Matrimonial assets to be divided equally £91million
The wife was awarded a total of £45 million, This represented 50% of the matrimonial assets accrued during the 22-year partnership but significantly, only 37.9% of the total assets.
Comment
It often takes a big money case like this to provide an illustration of how general principles are applied in practice. What we see is a fairly significant departure from the principle of equality to the wife’s detriment. The case also shows how financial claims can endure long after separation, a reminder of Mr Vince’s previous, widely reported divorce case where his wife made her financial claim more than a decade after they had divorced.