Short marriages in court – Mediation Ealing

In instances involving financial relief, the court applies the equal sharing concept, which was first established in the House of Lords twenty years ago. It ensured that the breadwinner’s participation did not weigh more than that of the housewife and child caretaker in order to promote equality and eradicate discrimination between two spouses in their separate responsibilities. This was done with the goal of achieving equality and eliminating prejudice. The Mediation Ealing judicial discretion is exerted through the use of a “yardstick of equality,” which is employed after the requirements produced by the connection and any compensation have been taken into consideration.

Six years later, in Mediation Ealing case involving a short marriage, the majority of the House of Lords ruled that there may be some exceptions to the straightforward application of an equal share vital that ensures an equal division of the matrimonial assets. This ruling was made in response to an argument that an equal sharing principle ensures an equal division of the matrimonial assets. A great deal hinges on the dynamics of the couple’s previous life choices, such as whether or not they managed to maintain their individual financial autonomy during the course of their marriage and whether or not one partner was responsible for the accumulation of non-family assets. In this particular instance, the case included a brief marriage that was childless. There is no evidence to support the idea that the lack of children in a marriage has any bearing on how the concept of sharing is used. However, the presence of children may have an effect on the individual requirements of each party as well as their capacity to earn money. It’s possible that doing so would constitute discrimination against couples of the same age and sexual orientation.

It was further emphasised earlier this year in a Mediation Ealing financial remedies case that included a brief marriage that the absence of children should have no bearing on the application of the equitable sharing principle. When deciding whether or not to apply the sharing principle, the court should almost always begin and end its analysis with the phrase “a marriage is a marriage.” The concept of sharing takes into account the value of assets acquired during the marriage and, on the assumption that the contributions were equivalent, splits the value of such assets equally. In this scenario, the husband attempted to leverage the fact that their marriage was quite brief and that they did not have any children together. After taking into account the compensation, the assets were ultimately divided as follows: 79 percent went to the husband, and 21 percent went to the wife. The majority of the assets were company assets, and the couple had been married for a very short period of time.

A break from the principle of equitable distribution of assets may be justifiable in a limited number of circumstances in which assets related to a business or investment, as opposed to assets related to the family, have been created over a brief period of time. The reasoning that lies behind the sharing principle is equally applicable to the assets of a family company as it is to those of a family. Other non-family assets include property that either party brought into the marriage or that was inherited or received as a gift during the course of the marriage. The yardstick of equality may be applied to these assets to a lesser extent, particularly in marriages that have lasted a relatively short amount of time. In accordance with subsection 25(2)(d), the court is specifically compelled to take into consideration the length of the marriage; nevertheless, there is no legislative definition of what constitutes a brief marriage. This deviation from the principle of equal sharing may only rarely apply to short marriages or when determining the assets of marriages involving “dual earners.” Dual earners are spouses who may have jointly contributed to the matrimonial assets while still maintaining a certain degree of financial independence from one another.

In spite of the fact that this may appear to be a deviation from the concept of equitable sharing and an approach that runs the danger of being discriminatory, we will only use it in the most exceptional of circumstances. Even if it’s only for a few years, a marriage of equals may last that long.

This being useful to you?

Stories and real-world examples to guide and assist you.

Please visit our website at and read our blogs for more information on the work and practise of family law. Because the blogs are helpful and meant to help you understand what you can do to remedy your problem, many of our customers have turned to us for assistance for the same reason that you have.

Contact our Mediator at Ealing or call on 0208 719 0001

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.