White v White [2000] UKHL 54
The House of Lords introduced the “yardstick of equality” as the measure of fairness between the breadwinner and the homemaker.
Introduction
In a foundational decision that redefined how courts handle the respective roles in a relationship and the financial resources of the parties, the House of Lords in White v White clarified how the role of the breadwinner and homemaker ought to be regarded during the separation of assets.
Background to the case
The dispute arose from a high-value divorce involving substantial family wealth. Before the parties separated, the couple had been married for 33 years, during which time the wife had been predominately responsible for looking after the home and their children (who were adults at the time of separation), whilst the husband was the primary breadwinner, working as a farmer on the family farm. Each party respectively came from farmer families and once married co-owned a farm together, and at the same time the husband also owned another with his brothers.
It was estimated that by the time of the first financial arrangement hearing in 1996 their combined net assets totalled £4.6 million.
At first instance, in determining the financial remedy for the wife, the court awarded her £800,000 of the couple’s assets.
The wife appealed to the Court of Appeal and was successful in increasing her financial award to £1.5 million.
The husband appealed this to the House of Lords, arguing that the amount should not have increased; whilst the wife cross-appealed arguing that the amount remained insufficient.
The House of Lords Decision
Whilst the House of Lord’s unanimously dismissed both appeals, and the wife’s award remained at £1.5 million; they engaged in helpful discussion which introduced the concept of a “yardstick of equality”. This was a case in which the financial resources of the couple, far exceeded their financials needs, and the court engaged with how best to handle this.
In line with Section 25(2) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, there are a number of provisions that the court must take into account when determining what financial award to grant either party. These factors include (but is not limited to):
- The income and earning capacity of the parties
- Their financial needs, obligations and responsibilities of the parties
- The standard of living in the marriage
- The age of the parties and the duration of marriage
- Any physical or mental disabilities
- The contributions of each party during the marriage
- The conduct of each party
- The value of any benefit applicable to the parties
The House of Lords noted that the first decision of only granting the wife £800,000 had only taken into account the financial needs of the wife, as opposed to her contributions to the marriage.
In this House of Lords decision, the court stated that in order to determine fairness, the court must take into account all the circumstances of the case and that in order to achieve a fair outcome, there could be no place for discrimination between the parties and their respective roles. In whichever way the division of labour was chosen during the marriage, fairness could not prejudice or advantage either party. They found that there could be no bias in favour of the money-earner and against the homemaker/child-carer.
This meant that financial needs alone, were not sufficient, when determining financial award. The Lords were therefore able to conclude that the court in the first instance was incorrect to only award the wife £800,000, particularly as they determined that the husband’s needs were no more than the wife’s and yet he was awarded just under four-fifths of their total assets.
However, they went further and stated that whilst fairness and equality must be taken into account, that doesn’t mean that the assets ought to be split equally. They therefore dismissed both appeals and found that the Court of Appeal’s decision was correct.
Why White v White matters
This decision brought to the forefront the importance of recognising that each party’s financial contributions during the course of the marriage may differ, but that a non-financial contribution still holds significant weight, and that should be considered accordingly.
By: Abigail Gledhill