![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Somerset_field_pattern_-_geograph.org.uk_-_108776.jpg/640px-Somerset_field_pattern_-_geograph.org.uk_-_108776.jpg&w=640&q=50)
White v White
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
White v White is an English family law decision by the House of Lords, and a landmark case in redistribution of finances as well as property on divorce.[1] This case involved a couple with assets exceeding £4.5m which was deemed more than either needs for their reasonable requirements. It was held that the absence of financial need did not mean departing from a more generous settlement for an applicant in big money cases. This, therefore, enables the courts to make settlements reflecting the wealth of the parties, and not just their needs and requirements.
![]() | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
White v White | |
---|---|
![]() Two dairy farms in Somerset were involved in the matter. | |
Court | Judicial Committee of the House of Lords |
Decided | 26 October 2000 |
Citations | [2000] UKHL 54 [2001] 1 AC 596 [2001] 1 All ER 1 [2001] Fam Law 12 [2000] 2 FLR 981 [2000] 3 FCR 555 [2000] 3 WLR 1571 |
Cases cited | Burgess v Burgess [1996] Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd [2001] |
Legislation cited | Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Family Law Act 1975 |
Case history | |
Prior actions | Appellants appealed and cross-appealed from the slightly uneven split in the Court of Appeal, based on husband's recent conversion from a quarter interest to 100% in a nearby farm owned with his brothers. |
Subsequent action | None |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Hutton |
Concurrence | Lord Hoffmann Lord Hope |
Keywords | |
Divorce; Financial provision; Matrimonial property; Partnerships |
It is clear from Lord Nicholls' leading speech that he intended much of what he said to apply to all matrimonial financial proceedings, not just big money ones. He said that in all cases, regardless of division of assets, a judge would always be well advised to check his tentative views (on distribution of assets) against the "yardstick of equality of division". This was not to introduce a presumption of equality in all cases, but "to ensure the absence of discrimination", for instance, between a wage earner, and a child-carer, thereby recognising the non-financial contribution of the parent caring for children.