The headline-grabbing decisions in the recent ‘rich list’ divorce cases confirm that the House of Lords is emphasising that marriage is a partnership and that the relative contributions of the couple to the marriage will be relevant to the financial settlement terms on divorce, as will the legitimate expectations of the couple. The judgments will be seized upon by divorcing spouses who have sacrificed their own careers for those of their partner, or those who married with the expectation of a well-to-do lifestyle only to have that prospect dashed. In delivering his judgment Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead stressed that marriages are partnerships of equals and that this principle is as relevant to short marriages as long ones.

In the first case (McFarlane v McFarlane), a wealthy accountant’s wife had given up her own successful career in order to help support her husband’s career and to concentrate on her roles as a wife, and mother to the couple’s three children. Nearly two decades later, the marriage broke down. The House of Lords heard the husband’s appeal against the decision of a lower court that his wife should receive a settlement of £250,000 a year for five years out of the husband’s annual income of £750,000. The Lords decided that Mrs McFarlane should receive the sum of £250,000 annually for life, subject to possible future revision if circumstances change. This judgment confirms that for ‘stay at home’ spouses, any settlement on divorce will not only be based on an assessment of their needs (as has been commonplace in the past), but also on their contribution to the wealth of the family. In addition, in this case the Lords also took account of the loss caused to Mrs McFarlane because she had foregone a career of her own.

In the second case (Miller v Miller), a brief (under 3 years) and childless marriage ended in divorce. The lower court ruled that since the wife had a reasonable expectation of a wealthy lifestyle, she should be given a settlement of £5m from her husband’s fortune, reported as being approximately £17.5m. This ruling was upheld, at least in part because Mr Miller earned a great deal of money during the period of the couple’s marriage. In general, the courts will look somewhat differently on wealth brought into the marriage by each spouse as opposed to the wealth accumulated during the marriage.

The question of the actual conduct of the spouses during the marriage was regarded as being of no importance in these cases.

'These judgments confirm that future expectations are relevant in determining financial settlements on the break-up of a marriage,' says Helen Hope. 'The contribution of each party to the marriage will also be relevant in the distribution of family assets.'

In his judgment, Lord Nicholls said that ‘in the case of a short marriage fairness may well require that the claimant should not be entitled to a share of the other's non-matrimonial property’. Non-matrimonial property is property brought into the marriage rather than acquired during it. He also emphasised that unless the misconduct by one spouse is ‘such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it', it cannot be a factor in the financial settlement. This should therefore mean that more divorce cases are settled without the need to go to court and that the negotiations are conducted in a more conciliatory manner.