The idea that matrimonial assets should be split equally between the parties. The 'yardstick of equality' — from the landmark case White v White [2001] — says equal division should be the starting point, and the court should only depart from it if there's good reason. In practice, a true 50/50 split is rare, for several reasons. First, needs comes first: the court's overriding aim is to meet the housing and income needs of both parties (and any children), and if one party needs more to rehouse themselves — especially a parent caring for children — the division shifts toward them. Second, not all assets are 'matrimonial' (built up during the marriage): wealth one party brought into the marriage, or inherited or received as a gift, may be kept largely by that party, particularly in shorter marriages. Third, the court weighs each party's earning capacity, contributions (financial and non-financial), and the other section 25 factors, which often justify an unequal split. So while 50/50 is the starting check, the actual outcome is usually weighted — often 60/40 or 70/30 — to reflect needs and fairness rather than a straight equal split.
In Plain English
The starting point for splitting assets in a marriage, though the court can change this to make sure everyone's needs, like housing for children, are met.
Navigating court alone?
A McKenzie Friend can help you understand terms like these in the context of your case.
Find your supportWe use essential cookies only to provide you with the best experience on our website. No tracking or analytics cookies are used.