LAUSR

In Sharp v Sharp [2017] EWCA Civ 408, the Court of Appeal clarified the circumstances in which it is fair not to share. This is the first time an appellate court has directly determined whether the equal sharing principle can be relaxed in short, childless marriages, 11 years after the principle was originally articulated by the House of Lords in Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2016] UKHL 24. It is apt that Sharp was labelled ‘Miller-lite’ (para. [105]) by McFarlane LJ because it has similar facts to Miller but involves a lower level of wealth. The relationship was short, lasting six years (including, the period of pre-marital cohabitation); the parties had no children, and are in their early 40s. Both parties earned £100,000 per year at the beginning of the relationship, but the wife ultimately earned significantly more than the husband during the marriage as a result of bonuses totalling £10.5 million. One year before the marriage ended in 2013, the husband took voluntary redundancy. An important distinguishing feature from Miller is that the parties were, according to the wife, ‘a genuine dual career family’ (para. [11]) that did not pool their finances, whereas in Miller the wife did not work. At first instance, Sir Peter Singer applied the sharing principle set out in Miller and held that the husband should receive 50% of the matrimonial assets, totalling £2.725 million. He included the wife’s bonuses in the pot of matrimonial assets for division. It is understandable why the judge reached this conclusion. In Miller, the House of Lords reasoned that the wife was entitled to £5 million because this reflected a share in the wealth acquired during the marriage. As Lord Nicholls said, short marriages are no less a partnership of equals (para. [17]). Therefore in Sharp, the bonuses were susceptible to division as they were acquired during the marriage. On appeal, the court set aside the first instance decision, as to the division of capital and instead made a property adjustment order allocating the parties’ first home to the husband and the second home to the wife, with an additional lump sum payment of £900,000 to the husband. Significantly, the Court of Appeal did not include the wife’s liquid capital in the pot of matrimonial assets for equal sharing. And so her bonuses constituted non-matrimonial property. McFarlane LJ’s leading judgement depended on the interpretation of two important points: when the equal sharing principle can be departed from and where to draw the line between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets in short, childless, dual career marriages.