Most divorce cases that get reported tend to be so-called ‘big money’ cases. These are heard before higher courts where published judgments are more common and are subject to greater public and media scrutiny. It stands to reason that parties with a lot to gain or lose financially depending on the outcome of their case are more likely to take the calculated risk of expensive litigation.

Occasionally however cases involving lesser sums of money or where the parties have limited means and extensive debts get reported. These cases, like the case of ND v LD discussed below, show the delicate balancing exercise family judges must engage in when trying to find a fair settlement in cases where family finances are stretched.

ND v LD – A ‘Small Money’ Needs Case

Equal division of assets on divorce – what judges call the ‘yardstick of equality’ – might be the starting point in any divorce. But as we have discussed before, departure from this principle is not unusual. That’s because of the wide discretion judges have to decide each case on its own facts. In cases where family resources are limited, meeting basic financial needs of the parties becomes the priority.

In ND v LD the court had to decide whether an order for the wife to pay maintenance should be made and what percentage share of the wife’s pension should be apportioned to the husband.

The only assets of any value were pensions. The wife’s was valued at £140,000 and the husband’s at £10,000. The couple’s debts were more than their savings.

The husband sought maintenance equivalent to 40% of the wife’s income to meet his needs together with a share of the wife’s pension. The wife argued that the financial circumstances the couple found them in meant a maintenance order was not appropriate. She argued that the husband should receive 35% of the pension pot.

What Does the Law Say?

Judges decide these cases with reference to the so-called ‘s25 factors’. Briefly these are:

  • The income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has
  • The financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each of the parties to the marriage has
  • The standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage
  • The age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage
  • Any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage
  • The contributions which each of the parties has made or is likely in the foreseeable future to make to the welfare of the family
  • The conduct of each of the parties, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it
  • The value to each of the parties to the marriage of any benefit … which, by reason of the dissolution or annulment of the marriage, that party will lose

What Did The Court Decide In ND v LD?

One of the most important cases in this area is the 2002 case of White v White. It makes clear that the starting point for financial remedy cases like this is equality. In ND v LD however the limited means of the parties meant that meeting their needs was highly relevant.  The judge pointed out that in White  the court had indicated that the purpose of the court’s discretionary powers under s 25 is to enable the court to make fair financial  arrangements on or after divorce in the absence of agreement between the former spouses.

In practical terms this meant that in ND v LD the court decided as follows:


The court rejected the husband’s request for maintenance. It highlighted the fact that if he were to receive maintenance not only would he lose his means tested benefits but also the wife would be in deficit each month as regards her expenses. That would not be a  fair outcome for the parties.


In the circumstances the court ordered that the pension be split 50:50, rejecting the wife’s suggestion that the husband should only receive 35% of the value. The judge drew attention to the fact that the wife has a future earning capacity while the husband’s mental health issues meant it was not at all clear whether he would ever work again. In addition, in what was a long relationship (30 years) the husband stayed at home to care for the couple’s children. He had effectively sacrificed his own career.


It’s unusual to see the details of a small money case like this spelt out so clearly. In our experience most financial cases where there are limited means get resolved before court – it simply makes no financial sense to pursue a court case the costs of which will likely swallow up a sizeable proportion of the available assets. ND v LD therefore provides a useful, if unusual insight into judicial approaches to cases where finances are stretched.

Got a question? Ask us now…

Kindly complete the form below to send an enquiry. Your message will be sent to one of our solicitors. Discretion is guaranteed.

Your Information

  • Consider including information such as: the name of your spouse (if relevant), the country you live in, the background to your problem.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Over 2000 FREE
consultations and counting…

Our free consultation can help you more clearly understand the legal issues relating your case and what your options are to move forward.

Request your free consultation

Or send us an enquiry

Henry listened carefully to my circumstances, offered practical solutions, and explained the steps I need to take in a way that was easy to understand. His approach was genuinely helpful and empathetic, making a challenging time much easier to navigate.

Jul 2024   Tracy Henin

They were quick to respond and organise a consultation regarding my divorce proceedings. Henry was very knowledable and personable and the advice given really gave me the clarity I needed in an uncertain situation.

Jul 2024   Rebecca Lowe

My initial free consultation with Natasha Slabas was just over an hour and very informative. Natasha helped me understand the situation and the next steps involved. I would definitely proceed with Brookman Solicitors in the future if required. They were very quick to book the initial consultation and very professional.

Jul 2024   Rajan Marwaha

Had an initial free talk with them. I was impressed with their honesty and understanding of the situation.

Jun 2024   Dianne Wilkins

I had a 30-minute consultation with Samantha Jago where she clearly explained all my options and followed up with a detailed email of notes. I would highly recommend if you need help to clarify where you stand and getting options for how you move forward.

Jun 2024   Katherine Davey

I recently had a one hour pro bono consultation with Samantha Jago. I was really blown away by how much she was able to digest in such a short period of time and even more so by the report which I received shortly after.

Apr 2024   S DF

I had applied for a free consultation and I was contacted in a very short timeframe. Thank you so much for the insightful and thorough consultation, Kevin Danagher. You made me feel at ease and you provided clear expectations with the initial info I had provided... I have now a much better understanding on my query.

Feb 2024   Sonia Accardi

We had a very useful first consultation with Amber Matheson today. Amber took the time to understand our (somewhat complicated) set-up, and offered good, understandable advice on next steps. She followed up with a very thorough email clarifying what we had discussed. Highly recommended.

Feb 2024   Lucie

Lovely friendly experience. All questions were answered so that I understood completely.

Dec 2023   Ali Catlin

Very balanced, fair and pragmatic advice. Thoroughly recommend!!

Nov 2023   James Elliott

Henry graciously provided his time for a consultation. I found him to be highly knowledgeable, empathetic and he provided excellent advice which put my mind at ease. Would highly recommend Henry and his firm.

Oct 2023   Allan Ang

Henry Brookman went above and beyond during the free consultation, and even overran the allocated time. He provided invaluable professional advice in a courteous manner. I recommend his firm without reservation.

Sep 2023   Mario Ignatov

I only had my initial free review with Amelia yet I already feel much more strengthened in my legal and financial position. I am currently reflecting on the steps I want to take to negotiate my desired outcome of the financial settlement but, when I am ready to use the services of a lawyer, Amelia is definitely the top on my list.

Sep 2023   Nahid Toubia

I had a zoom consultation with Lauren Moir and she was incredible. Very patient, insightful and reassuring. She also advised me based on my previous conversations with another firm and also clarified various positions I am in. Highly recommend.

Aug 2023   Gary Hawes

I was very impressed with the friendly, helpful and professional service offered by Brookman Solicitors. The generous advice and knowledge offered during the initial free consultation has enabled us to have a much better understanding of our case and plan a way forward.

Jul 2023   Peter Jackson

Google Reviews
Ask A Question

Contact Us

If you have questions, contact us now, we can help you.

Enquire Now

Or call us on +44 (0)20 7430 8470