‘A marriage is a marriage’: equal sharing in short, childless marriages

E v L [2021] EWFC 60 (Fam) considered the case of highly successful production manager, L (the husband, 66 years) and E (the wife, 61 years). Almost immediately after their relationship started in 2015, L began paying financial support to E of between £5,000 – £10,000 per month. Following their engagement in 2016, they married in 2017, separating in 2019, when L decreased his monthly support to E to £2,500 per month. The decree nisi was granted in October 2020, and the wife made an application to the court. L had interests in six businesses and had reached the pinnacle of his career. E was seeking a lump sum of £5.5 million (her calculation of the marital acquest). L’s position was that he should pay £600,000, maintaining that because of the short, childless nature of the marriage, this was not a case for equal sharing of the marital acquest, but one that should be confined to very conservatively assessed needs. This case considers the significance of childlessness and length of marriage when apportioning finances following divorce. In England and Wales, judicial discretion determines the distribution of economic resources between the parties, with the ultimate aim of achieving a fair outcome (White v White [2001] UKHL 54). Family law conceives of marriage as a relationship in which both parties make equal, or at least similar, contributions, with parties co-operating together as part of a joint enterprise (Fehlberg 2005, Douglas 2018). The concept of fairness, as measured by a ‘yardstick of equality’, considers three key principles: (i) needs; (ii) compensation; and (iii) sharing (Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24). Whilst in the majority of cases, limited assets mean that the application of the needs principle is the most significant factor, in ‘big money’ divorces needs are only one of the principles considered (Miller; McFarlane); any settlement ‘must be fair both to the applicant in need and to the respondent who must pay’ (North v North [2007] EWCA Civ 760, para. 32). The fundamental objective of any financial remedy is that of achieving ‘fairness’ between the parties upon dissolution of marriage: