Sharing

Gap #42

The assumption

I disclosed my bank statements. The judge will see them at the hearing.

The reality

Disclosure and the hearing bundle are separate things. Disclosure means sharing documents with the other party. The hearing bundle — governed by Practice Direction 27A — is what the judge actually reviews. Documents you disclose are not automatically in the bundle; they must be specifically included and agreed.

Gap #95

The assumption

I gave up work and ran the home. That is a contribution. The court will treat it as 50/50.

The reality

While non-financial contributions are recognised, equal sharing is not guaranteed. Courts often apply a needs-first approach, prioritising needs before any principle of sharing. Short marriage alone does not settle the question. In Sharp v Sharp [2017] EWCA Civ 408, the Court of Appeal departed from equal sharing in a short, childless marriage where the couple had dual careers and kept separate finances. But in E v L [2021] EWFC 60, Mr Justice Mostyn held that childlessness should not by itself count against equal sharing, warning that treating it as automatic risks unconscious discrimination between parents and non-parents. What matters is the combination of factors present in the case, not marriage length taken in isolation.

Gap #109

The assumption

Everything we built together during the marriage should be split equally. That's what the law says.

The reality

Equal sharing is often a principle, but not a guarantee. Courts typically consider various factors, including needs and contributions, especially in shorter marriages, where needs may take precedence.

Gap #135

The assumption

I’m getting half his pension — I can use it to buy a house.

The reality

A pension sharing order moves funds into a pension pot in your name; it is not cash for your bank account. You generally cannot access this money until at least 55 (rising to 57). Even then, only around 25% is usually tax‑free, with the rest taxed as income, reducing what’s available. If you need cash now, you may ‘offset’ the pension, keeping more of the property instead.

Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane — 2006

The foundational House of Lords case that established the framework all UK financial remedy cases are decided under. Two conjoined appeals — one involving a short marriage with significant wealth generated, one involving a 16-year marriage where the wife sacrificed her legal career. Together they defined the three principles courts apply today: needs, compensation, and sharing. In most ordinary cases, however, needs consume the entire pot — and sharing or compensation never arise.