Short, Childless Marriages – The Equal Sharing Principle

The recent divorce case of E v L [2021] EWFC 60 has once again brought into the limelight the subject of short marriages and how they are regarded by the Courts within financial remedy cases.

Mr Justice Mostyn’s judgment, in this case, provides some useful commentary on the subject of short, childless marriages and the equal sharing principle. The consideration of the length of a marriage is a statutory one as per Section 25(2)(d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

Case background

The husband and wife were 66 and 61 respectively and the length of the parties’ marriage as of the date of the trial was five years. The wife in this case, whilst embarking on various previous careers, was now a housewife. The husband was a production manager for live music events who had an interest in six businesses.

The difference in the parties’ positions was labelled ‘extraordinary” by Mr Justice Mostyn. The wife’s position was that she should receive half of the marital acquest, which would have equated to £5.5million. The husband’s position was that he should pay the wife the sum of £600,000. This was argued on the basis that:

What did the Courts decide?

Mr Justice Mostyn first dealt with the fact that this couple did not have any children and how this should affect the principle of equal sharing. Mr Justice Mostyn concluded that it was extremely dangerous for a Court to evaluate the quality of a marriage and:

Dealing specifically with whether the marriage had produced children, Mr Justice Mostyn indicated that:

Consideration was then given to the length of the marriage and following a useful summary of the relevant case law, Mr Justice Mostyn concluded fairly firmly that:

It is Mr Justice Mostyn’s proposition that:

Mr Justice Mostyn emphasised the word ‘earned’ to draw a distinction between money generated during a marriage and an asset brought into a marriage which has been ‘matrimonialised’ (e.g. a property which has been used as a family home as the law recognises the possibility of unequal sharing of that type of asset).

The final outcome was a payment due to the wife of £1,515,000 on the basis that the acquest that accrued during the period between January 2016 and June 2021 should be divided equally.

So where does this leave us?

The case of E v L provides clear guidance that the presence of children within a marriage is relevant only to needs rather than the sharing principle. There should be no differentiation between the commitment of a marriage with or without children.

This is another case that highlights the importance of considering a nuptial agreement that would have confirmed the parties’ intentions prior to the breakdown of their relationship.