White v White ============= The case of *White v White* is of significant importance for family law practitioners, as it fundamentally shifted the approach to the division of assets upon divorce. *Fairness, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder*. This is how Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead introduced an appeal in the House of Lords that forever changed how the family courts distributed marital wealth on divorce and reflected how the concepts of breadwinner and homemaker had evolved in societal consciousness. Case overview ------------- When a farmer's wife petitioned for divorce in 1994, there was little indication that course of English legal history would be altered. This was the demise of a long marriage - Pamela and Martin White had tied the knot in 1961. One year later, they purchased Blagroves farm, a picturesque Jacobean house accompanied by 160 acres of land. Having both come from farming stock, the Whites made Blagroves their home and formed a dairy farming enterprise there in partnership. The couple went on to have three children, who were primarily cared for by the mother while their father worked on the farm. However, the courts also accepted that Mrs White carried out a variety of tasks which contributed towards the success of the farm. By the time the marriage broke down, the children had grown up. Decree nisi was pronounced in 1995, and in 1996 both Mr and Mrs White brought applications for ancillary relief (now known as financial remedy proceedings) before Mr Justice Holman. At this point, the principle marital assets were worth £3.5 million and the size of the farm had more than doubled. The applications proceeded on a 'clean break'basis, meaning that the settlement would end all financial obligations to each other. Prior to *White v White*, the family courts generally made financial orders based on what was then termed 'reasonable needs and requirements'. According to this model, the financially weaker spouse would be awarded a settlement based on what they needed to satisfy their capital needs, predominantly their need for housing. Their income requirements would also be focused on meeting their reasonable requirements and would often be around one third of the husband's income, based on the formulaic guideline made a precedent in *Wachtel v Wachtel*, regardless of the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. Mr Justice Holman determined that Mrs White reasonably required £980,000, just over one-fifth of the total marital pot. Under this order, Mrs White was to receive a payment of £800,000, with the rest of the award being satisfied by her own assets. She was also required to transfer all jointly-owned assets to Mr White. Judgment in the court of appeal and the house of lords ------------------------------------------------------ Mrs White was not content with this settlement, having hoped to receive enough assets to enable her to buy a new farm. However, Mr Justice Holman ruled that this was not a reasonable requirement, as it would entail breaking up the existing farm and impinge on Mr White's reasonable requirement to continue farming. She took her case to the Court of Appeal, where it was argued that, had she been a business partner, she would have been entitled to a much larger share, due to her considerable contributions towards the farm. The Court of Appeal ruled that there was no fairness in ordering a transfer of property in favour of Mr White, due to Mrs White's partnership role. The court awarded Mrs White a further £700,000, bringing her total award to £1.5 million. Neither party were satisfied with this outcome. Mr White sought restoration of the original order, and appealed to the House of Lords in 2000. Mrs White cross-appealed, seeking an equal share in all the matrimonial assets. At the appeal, Lord Nicholls stressed the equality of contribution made by both parties throughout the duration of the marriage. He stated that, for this reason, Mr Justice Holman had been mistaken in taking a needs-based approach. Part II of the Matrimonial Causes Act gave the courts considerable judicial discretion as to making financial provision orders and property adjustment orders. Section 25 of the Act sets out a list of factors that the court is required to regard in making such orders. These include, but are not limited to, financial resources and earning capacity, financial needs, the duration of the marriage and age of each party, the standard of living enjoyed prior to the marital breakdown, and the contributions of each party to the welfare of the family. In his judgment, Lord Nicholls stressed that Section 25 gives no indication that a claimant's financial needs should, above all else, determine the division of assets. This is particularly pertinent in this case, where the assets outstripped the parties'needs. In exercising these powers, the implicit objective must be to achieve a fair outcome, although, as Lord Nicholls calls attention to, this is not explicitly stated in the legislation. Fairness, he stated, dictates that "there should be no bias in favour of the money-earner and against the home-maker and child-carer". There was therefore no reason why, in the case of *White v White*, the surplus assets should be awarded solely to the husband. The impact of white v white --------------------------- It was a landmark judgment, and its impact on family law was swiftly felt. Nicholls had cautioned that equality should only be departed from if there was a good reason for doing so, and this approach was widely adopted. Equality had become the consensus, and discrepancies had to be justified. Lord Nicholls assured that he did not intend to introduce a legal presumption of equal division of the available assets, or even introduce the idea of a 50:50 split as a starting point. To do so would be "impermissible judicial gloss on the statutory provision". Instead family court judges, having carried out the statutory exercise laid out in Section 25, should check their tentative views "against the yardstick of equality". Most of the House agreed with his caveat, that equality ought not be presumed from the outset in all cases. However in practice, as Lord Cooke predicted, the impact of the judgment went beyond this. In the 2007 case of *Charman v Charman*, the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court financial order citing the sharing principle established in *White v White* whereby the parties' contributions to the welfare of the family should generally lead to an equal division of assets unless there is a good reason for the division to be unequal. The judgment specified that the consensus in English courts since *White v White* had shifted and that it was not even necessary to postpone the consideration of the sharing principle. After *White v White*, the judiciary finally saw which way the wind was blowing. Just as socially, we have moved towards equality in marriage, in marital distribution we have moved towards equality in law. **If you are considering or going through a divorce, click below for a free initial consultation with one of our expert divorce solicitors.** [BOOK MY FREE CONSULTATION](https://vardags.com/contact) In the Press ------------ [All's fair in love and divorce (Telegraph)](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4471156/Alls-fair-in-love-and-divorce.html) [Wives may now get half in 'big money'divorce (Guardian)](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/oct/27/claredyer) About Us -------- Ayesha VardagFounder & President "A DIVORCE LAWYER WIDELY REGARDED AS ONE OF THE WORLD'S BEST" The Metro Vardags offer a unique approach to the law, specially tailored to the needs of HNW individuals. We offer City-quality representation for your divorce and family law needs. Our lawyers come from the very best universities and receive the very best training - they are determined, diligent, and dedicated to getting the best outcome... [read more](https://vardags.com/about-us) [BOOK FREE CONSULTATION](https://vardags.com/contact) Related Reads ------------- ### Divorce in history and culture: White v White After jumping back hundreds of years for the first blog in this series, this time we'll... [READ MORE](https://vardags.com/family-law/divorce-white "Divorce in history and culture: White v White") ### White gave us equality, Radmacher, autonomy: Ayesha Vardag's lecture on the biggest ever family law cases It was a tragic case. There were two sex workers, both with young babies. One died in a tragic... [READ MORE](https://vardags.com/posts/ayesha-vardags-lecture-on-the-biggest-ever-family-law-cases "White gave us equality, Radmacher, autonomy: Ayesha Vardag's lecture on the biggest ever family law cases") Related Guides -------------- [The Needs Principle in Divorce](https://vardags.com/law-guide/how-the-courts-decide-a-financial-settlement/the-needs-principle "The Needs Principle in Divorce") [The Principle of Compensation in Divorce](https://vardags.com/law-guide/how-the-courts-decide-a-financial-settlement/the-principle-of-compensation "The Principle of Compensation in Divorce") [The Sharing Principle in Divorce](https://vardags.com/law-guide/how-the-courts-decide-a-financial-settlement/the-sharing-principle "The Sharing Principle in Divorce") [What are the guiding principles of the courts?](https://vardags.com/law-guide/how-the-courts-decide-a-financial-settlement/guiding-principles "What are the guiding principles of the courts?") Glossary Reference ------------------ ### Appeal An application to a higher court to overturn the decision from the lower court. ### Court of Appeal The second highest court in England and Wales. The court reviews decisions made by the lower courts. ### Sharing principle Where the parties have more than enough assets to meet their needs, the court will consider how those assets should be shared. The starting point will be to divide matrimonial assets 50:50, recognising that spouses are equal partners in a marriage. The information on this website is intended as a guide and does not constitute legal advice. Vardags do not accept liability for any errors in the information on this website, nor any losses stemming from reliance upon the statements made herein. All articles and pages aim to reflect the legal position at time they were published, and may have been rendered obsolete by subsequent developments in the law. Should you require specialist advice, tailored to your situation, please see how Vardags can help you. What our clients say -------------------- Getting any kind of family problem is really when you are at your most vulnerable variables and their whole team were incredibly supportive, kind, attentive and caring throughout the entire experience. The whole team were... incredibly supportive, kind, attentive, and caring throughout the entire experience. Geeta Sidhu-Robb I would like to say working with the staff at Vardags was a great support to me at a difficult time of my life but with their support and sensitivity I was able to get through the experience with less stress and ease. If anyone... is looking for a good legal team I would recommend Vardags. They may cost a bit more but will give you good service. Brenda Hart An extremely capable & exceptionally committed family law team for medium-to-very high wealth individuals led by the financial genius Dr Stephen Bence and highly distinguished Ayesha Vardag. Martin Waters I am so happy I got to make the call to Vardags first! Excellent service. Whole team of forensics that I would have been totally lost without. I really cannot thank you enough for a perfect outcome to a complicated and not easy... case. Your care throughout was amazing. Christina Wolff Vardags is among the most effective, efficient, and successful group of solicitors I have encountered. They sit at the top table of skill and innovation in family law. They were remarkably caring and attentive to me during a... difficult period. When my position looked bleak, they protected me with a creative defense based upon legal precedent which I never imagined existed under English law. Thanks to their tireless efforts, I walk away from this episode free to move on with both my career and my life in peace. You may find good or even great lawyers, but based on my personal experience, they are the best. Cliff Krause I hope you don't need it, but if you do, I would highly recommend Vardags. Xiao Ma OUR LEADERSHIP TEAM ------------------- [### Ayesha Vardag](https://vardags.com/solicitors/london/ayesha-vardag "Ayesha Vardag Founder & President Divorce & Family") [### Stephen Bence](https://vardags.com/solicitors/london/stephen-bence "Stephen Bence Vardags CEO") [### David Lister](https://vardags.com/solicitors/london/david-lister "David Lister") [Founder & President](https://vardags.com/solicitors/london/ayesha-vardag "Ayesha Vardag Founder & President Divorce & Family") [Chief Executive Officer](https://vardags.com/solicitors/london/stephen-bence "Stephen Bence Vardags CEO") [Senior Partner and Head of London Family - Divorce & Family](https://vardags.com/solicitors/london/david-lister "David Lister") [### Ayesha Vardag Founder & President ](https://vardags.com/solicitors/london/ayesha-vardag "Ayesha Vardag Founder & President Divorce & Family")"Ayesha Vardag - Britain's top divorce lawyer." The Telegraph [### Stephen Bence Chief Executive Officer](https://vardags.com/solicitors/london/stephen-bence "Stephen Bence Vardags CEO")"Dr Stephen Bence is a financial genius." Lewis Marks KC [### David Lister Senior Partner and Head of London Family - Divorce & Family ](https://vardags.com/solicitors/london/david-lister "David Lister")"Brilliant with a real spark which clients love" Legal 500 [Meet the rest of the team](https://vardags.com/team) [Vardags climbs ranks of UK's biggest firms in The Lawyer's UK 200](https://vardags.com/posts/vardags-london-climbs-ranks-of-uks-biggest-firms-in-the-lawyers-uk-200)