Discussion of the Miller judgment continues today in an interesting article in the Times Online by David Pannick, QC. He considers that the judgment involves "compromises and unclear exceptions that will inevitably result in awards that are impossible to explain on any rational basis" and argues that "the law lords should have stated, for reasons of principle and for the pragmatic reasons of promoting clarity and certainty, that on the ending of a marriage (whatever its duration) all the assets of the two partners, surplus to their reasonable requirements, should be split equally". In case this is perceived to be unfair, he says, the law lords should have made it clear that a prenuptial agreement setting out a different division of surplus assets would be upheld.

Of course, all of this is of only academic interest to the vast majority of separating couples, whose assets are only sufficient to meet their basic financial needs.