Cowan v Cowan

In ancillary relief proceedings, the objective is a fair outcome under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Financial needs or reasonable requirements are only one factor and cannot impose a ceiling where resources exceed needs.

Equality is a cross-check against discrimination between spouses and their domestic and financial roles, not a rule or presumption of equal division. Exceptional skill or effort may justify departure from equality, but contributions should normally be assessed broadly and without invidious comparison.

After a marriage lasting over 35 years, Singer J ordered the husband to pay the wife a lump sum of £1.775 million, producing total assets of about £3.2 million for her. The award was assessed principally by reference to reasonable requirements under section 25.

While the appeal was pending, the House of Lords decided White v White [2000] 3 WLR 1571. The wife contended that the award should be substantially increased, while the husband argued that the existing order was within the discretionary range or that the matter should be retried. The central issue was how the statutory discretion should be re-exercised after White.

1. Lord Justice Thorpe’s judgment. The objective under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is fairness, not equality. The section 25(2) factors must be applied without hierarchy. Reasonable requirements cannot be used as a ceiling, and equal division is a cross-check against discrimination. Domestic and breadwinning contributions must be treated without bias. Exceptional entrepreneurial skill, housing arrangements, liquidity, pension characteristics, possible family obligations and the husband’s continuing opportunity to work were relevant factors.
2. Lord Justice Robert Walker’s judgment. White v White [2000] 3 WLR 1571 did not introduce a presumption of equality. The lower court had nevertheless placed excessive weight on reasonable requirements. A possible wish to support a brother could not justify reducing the wife’s share where no enforceable or continuing obligation was established.
3. Lord Justice Mance’s judgment. A special contribution arising from skill and effort may receive weight in an appropriate case, although detailed comparison between domestic and business roles should be avoided. Assets were ordinarily assessed at the date of the hearing or appeal, while post-separation growth could be relevant to contribution. The nature and liquidity of assets were relevant, but the husband remained highly liquid. The wife’s long marriage and domestic contribution justified a substantial share, while the husband’s exceptional contribution justified a departure from equality.
4. The Court of Appeal re-exercised the discretion without a retrial. The appeal was allowed with costs. The lump sum was increased from £1.775 million to £3 million, all other provisions remained undisturbed, and permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

1. Court of Appeal: Appeal allowed with costs. The wife’s lump-sum award was increased from £1.775 million to £3 million. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.
2. High Court, Family Division: Singer J ordered a lump sum of £1.775 million, together with provision retaining the wife’s occupation of Hadham Grange and ownership of the Florida flat.