Children overrule equality

Deakin v Deakin [2004] FD LTL 21 June; Family Law Journal October

This case was the other side of the coin to the big money claims of White v White and Parlour v Parlour. An equal division of the family assets would leave both parties inadequately provided for. There were large debts on both sides. The wife had a lower income with no borrowing capacity. The husband had a much greater earning capacity than the wife and had compounded the proceedings by failing to provide full and frank disclosure. The two children of the family, aged 11 and 7, were residing with the wife and were the primary reason for deviating from equality. It was of overwhelming importance to provide a home for the children. The Court of Appeal upheld the district judge’s order that the matrimonial home be sold and, after the mortgage had been paid, some, though not all, of the matrimonial debts should be settled from the net proceeds. Thereafter, the wife was to receive a lump sum of £160,000, deemed sufficient to buy a mortgage-free house for her and the children, and the husband would receive a share in any balance and a lease of the six-bedroom manor house in which he was living. The husband argued that the order was discriminatory in that he would receive only 10.1% of the assets compared to the wife’s 89.9%. In rejecting his argument, and indeed his arithmetic, the Court said that the overwhelming importance of housing the children squared the disparity with the principles of equality enunciated in White.