Work v Gray

On a renewed application for permission to appeal in financial remedy proceedings, it was arguable that the assessment of a claimed special contribution had not sufficiently considered the sheer quantum of wealth generated. Extraordinary wealth may make it easier to establish an exceptional and individual quality, and in some cases the product alone may justify special treatment. The court should then consider whether the contribution was unmatched and whether it would be inequitable to disregard it in all the circumstances. Permission was therefore granted so that the approach could be reconsidered on the merits.

The husband renewed his application for permission to appeal against an order by Holman J in the Family Division dated 10 March 2015. The order required him to pay the wife lump sums representing 50 per cent of the parties’ net assets, together with maintenance pending suit until payment in full.

The husband contended that his generation of substantial wealth constituted a special contribution warranting an unequal division. Holman J rejected that argument, finding no unmatched special contribution of the kind required by the authorities. The central issue was whether the judge had wrongly failed to consider whether the magnitude of the wealth itself made it easier to establish an exceptional individual quality.

Permission to appeal granted on the special-contribution issue. The application concerned permission only; the merits of the proposed appeal were not determined.

1. The statutory context was section 25(2)(f) and (g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The court must have regard to each party’s contribution to the welfare of the family and to conduct where it would be inequitable to disregard it.
2. The guidance in Charman rejected a fixed wealth threshold for special contributions. Its paragraph 80 recognised that the product alone might in some cases justify special treatment. Where wealth was extraordinary, its amount might make it easier to establish an exceptional and individual quality. Conversely, wealth might be a windfall which did not result from a special contribution.
3. Holman J had stated that, absent an exceptional individual quality, a special contribution would be difficult to establish. It was arguable that he had not sufficiently considered whether the sheer quantum of the wealth generated in this case made it easier to conclude that the husband’s contribution was exceptional, before considering whether it was unmatched and whether it would be inequitable to disregard it.
4. The grounds therefore required reframing. Permission was granted on that basis. Permission concerning the continuing maintenance order remained refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On the renewed application, permission to appeal was granted on reframed special-contribution grounds. Permission concerning maintenance remained refused: [2016] EWCA Civ 286.
• High Court of Justice, Family Division: Holman J ordered payment of lump sums representing 50 per cent of the net assets and continuing maintenance pending suit on 10 March 2015.