White v White
In dividing assets on divorce there must be no discrimination between the breadwinner and the homemaker, and any division should be checked against the yardstick of equality.
Facts
Mr and Mrs White had been married for over 30 years and had run a farming business together as partners. Their assets were worth about 4.6 million pounds. The judge awarded Mrs White about 980,000 pounds, a sum based on her reasonable requirements. The Court of Appeal increased the award to about 1.5 million pounds. Mrs White appealed, seeking an equal share, and Mr White cross appealed.
Legal principle
The House of Lords dismissed both appeals. Lord Nicholls said that the objective of the court in dividing property under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is to achieve a fair outcome, and that there is no place for discrimination between husband and wife and their respective roles. If one spouse earned the money and the other looked after the home and the children, the contribution of the homemaker should not be undervalued. Before reaching a decision, the judge should check the tentative view against the yardstick of equality of division, and should depart from equality only if, and to the extent that, there is good reason for doing so. Limiting the wife to her reasonable requirements was wrong.
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
- 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
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.
