Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane
Fairness in financial remedies is achieved through the three principles of needs, compensation and sharing, and sharing applies to all matrimonial property even after a short marriage.
Facts
In Miller, the marriage was short, under three years, and childless, but the husband was very wealthy, and the judge awarded the wife 5 million pounds, including the home. In McFarlane, the marriage was long, there were three children, and the wife had given up a successful career as a solicitor to look after the family while the husband's career as an accountant flourished. The question was whether she should receive periodical payments beyond her needs, to compensate her for her lost career.
Legal principle
The House of Lords upheld the award in Miller and restored the award of substantial periodical payments in McFarlane. Their Lordships identified three strands of fairness: meeting the needs generated by the relationship, compensation for relationship generated disadvantage, such as a career sacrificed for the family, and sharing the fruits of the matrimonial partnership. Lord Nicholls said that the sharing principle applies to short marriages as well as long ones, but Baroness Hale explained that non matrimonial property, such as property acquired before the marriage or by inheritance, might be treated differently, especially after a short marriage. Periodical payments could be used to provide compensation as well as to meet needs.
Related cases on financial remedies on divorce
- Barder v Caluori [1988] AC 20
- Charman v Charman (No 4) [2007] EWCA Civ 503, [2007] 1 FLR 1246
- 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
- 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.
