Charman v Charman (No 4)
Special contribution by one spouse, such as the generation of exceptional wealth by a genius, can justify a departure from equal sharing, but only in exceptional cases.
Facts
Mr and Mrs Charman had been married for 28 years. Mr Charman had built up a hugely successful insurance business, and the family assets were worth about 131 million pounds, much of it in a trust he had set up. The judge awarded Mrs Charman about 48 million pounds, or about 37 percent, on the basis that Mr Charman had made a special contribution to the creation of the wealth. Mr Charman appealed against the treatment of the trust assets as available to him.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Sir Mark Potter P, giving the judgment of the court, said that a trust could be treated as a resource of a spouse if the trustee would be likely to advance the capital to that spouse if asked. The court explained the sharing principle, saying that property should be shared equally unless there is good reason to the contrary, and that a special contribution, such as wealth generated by the exceptional and individual quality of one spouse's work, could be such a reason. In such a case, the departure from equality should be between 55:45 and 66.6:33.3. The court said that this would be rare.
Related cases on financial remedies on divorce
- Barder v Caluori [1988] AC 20
- Edgar v Edgar [1980] 1 WLR 1410
- Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61, [2016] AC 849
- Jones v Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 41, [2012] Fam 1
- Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 2 AC 618
- Mills v Mills [2018] UKSC 38, [2018] 3 WLR 1170
- Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, [2011] 1 AC 534
- Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60, [2016] AC 871
Studying family law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
