A recent case involving a fairly short, childless marriage and dual incomes has established that equal sharing is not automatic.

The Judgment of Lord Justice McFarlane in Sharp v Sharp [2017] EWCA Civ 408 considers why the application of the concept of unilateral assets would justify departure from equality in a short, childless marriage involving dual earnings.

Actually, the marriage was not all that short. The couple started living together in 2007, married in June 2009 and began divorce proceedings in December 2013. In other words, they were together for some 6 years, which in some cases can be interpreted as medium length. They were in their early 40s. The total assets were £6.9 million. The Wife had £4.17 million in her bank accounts. This was because although they had earned approximately similar basic salaries, the Wife had earned £10.5 million of bonuses during the marriage. They had always kept their finances separate and did not know the detail of each other’s. They often divided up their restaurant bills for meals out and they paid half of all household bills.

The first instance Judgment said that there was “no sufficient reason… for parting from equality of division”.

However, the Court of Appeal held that it was wrong to say that there was an automatic application of an equal division in every case. McFarlane LJ said “if… the equal sharing principle of 50/50 allocation is now applied… without exception… this would seem to be a very significant and wholly unjustified development…”. “An automatic or blind application of a 50/50 split in every case can only be an inadmissible judicial gloss on the statute, which expressly requires the Court to consider all the circumstances of the case”.

The Court’s conclusion was that fairness may require a reduction from a full 50% share or the exclusion of some property from the 50% calculation.

The Husband’s share was then reduced, being made up partly from a 50% share of certain properties and another lump sum to deal with future needs.

This case is especially important for two reasons. First, of course, the emphasis that it is wrong to apply an automatic 50/50 presumption to any case, every case depends on its facts. The important second aspect, though, is where McFarlane LJ talks about “the exclusion of some property from the 50% calculation”. Up to now Judges have been required, fairly strictly, to look at the whole pool of assets and apply a global percentage to them, but where appropriate to vary that percentage to reflect other factors. So far so good. Generally, they have been told it is wrong to “ringfence” certain assets. However, the case of Sharp v Sharp gives the first indication that in some cases it might be appropriate to carry out the calculation by ringfencing, because every case depends on its own facts.

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

Today I had my free initial consultation with partner Henry Brookman over the phone. He had a clear understanding of my situation based on the info I provided in advance and provided me with sound advice and guidance to move forward. Many thanks.

Aug 2022   H. J.

Really appreciated Brookman's advice and support. Most lawyers charge extortionate fees just for an initial conversation but not Henry. Thanks for all your advice and time.

Jul 2022   Chloé

I had a consultation with the partner Henry Brookman. I can absolutely recommend him, he seemed knowledgeable, up to date and patient. I have found him to be straightforward in the answers he gives and down to earth. 100% recommended.

Jun 2022   Michael P

I have no hesitation whatsoever in recommending Henry Brookman. His advice came in promptly when solicited, and was excellent. He is a thoughtful and very professional lawyer. He understood perfectly well the issue I presented him with, and gave me excellent advice in a family law related matter.

May 2022   Philip Hands

From my first contact with the firm I was treated courteously and promptly. I was offered a pro bono meeting shortly after making contact. Mr Brookman is clearly a very experienced professional and in our meeting he gave me some well considered and objective advice about my rather complicated situation which spans more than one jurisdiction.

May 2022   Julian Peachey

I had an initial consultation with Henry Brookman regarding prenuptial agreements and found him to be very helpful and knowledgeable.

Mar 2022   Simon Brooks

I had a free telephone consultation yesterday with Gavin Yeung. He could not have been more helpful and reassuring as he calmly and patiently worked through my situation to provide me with clarity and piece of mind at a time it was really needed and emotions are running high.

Mar 2022   'K M'

I spoke with Aziz at Brookman Solicitors on the phone for an initial consultation and he is one of the friendliest lawyers I have met. He is clearly very experienced as he patiently explained me all the concepts and processes which are quite daunting for someone in my situation, and then focused on the actual questions I wanted to ask... I would highly recommend Aziz and Brookman Solicitors.

Feb 2022   'R'

I am grateful for Henry Brookman and his team for support they provided to me during very frustrating time of divorce. They respond promptly to any request. I felt more confident after I started the process with them. Henry listened carefully to me and took quick actions on my case. I highly recommend this team of real professionals even for non-UK citizens.

Feb 2022   Sezim Beksultanova

I had online consultation with the partner Henry Brookman today. I was very happy with the service. I found him to be very insightful, knowledgeable and provided sound advice, as well as being kind and patient. It was a very comfortable discussion and he sent an email detailing our discussion very quickly discussing in our meeting in depth. I am amazed by the service we got just from a free consultation. I would highly recommend these solicitors!

Jan 2022   Shirley Christopher

We spoke at length and at no point felt like he was rushing us and we felt very comfortable. After our discussion we were also quickly sent an email detailing everything we were discussing in our meeting in depth. I am amazed by the service we got just from a free consultation. I would highly recommend these solicitors!

Dec 2021   Tina

I was fortunate to spend an hour running through a few questions with Natasha Slabas. She was quick to grasp the points raised and proposed a sensible way forward. Would recommend

Dec 2021   Nick Powell

I cannot praise the professionalism and courtesy too highly. The advice given in a very complex divorce matter, was clear, concise, enlightening and inspiring.

Nov 2021   Mary Barn

I contacted Henry Brookman because of the complex international aspect of my divorce and I’m very glad I did... Henry took his time explaining all the pro’s and contra’s... I now have a much clearer view over the situation and feel more confident going forward. I’m very grateful for the excellent advice I’ve received and not feeling rushed during the meeting.

Nov 2021   'A B'

Talitha offers sound advice, asks the right questions and advises you with what you need to know not just what you want to hear. I have no hesitation in recommending her services.

Sep 2021   Anu Vidyarthi

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