An unsatisfactory state of affairs

I had the pleasure of meeting David Hodson yesterday. He was giving a seminar for the Kent Law Society on the subject of ancillary relief, dealing particularly with recent case law. He concluded the seminar with a point that I've made here before: "Too often, the case law from the higher courts acts to highlight the micro aspects of the law's development and changes including those needs of a small band of litigants who can afford the privilege, yet the big issues affecting the vast majority of practitioners and average clients and cases seems to go unnoticed or given low priority".

Is it right that almost all of the guidance we get upon how to apply the law in a discretionary-based system comes from judges sitting in big-money cases that bear no relation to the vast majority of cases we deal with? For example, in most cases involving parties of 'average' means, the primary issue is their needs - how are these to be met from the limited assets available? In big-money cases needs is not, of course, an issue - there are ample assets available to fund even the most frivolous lifestyle. Guidance should come from parliament, but Hodson seriously doubts that there is the political will for reform, and I have to agree. One thing seems certain: unless there is clear guidance from somewhere, we will be left in the position of having to advise many of our clients that the law is "a bit of a lottery", as stated by Hodson, referring to the views given by James Turner QC. A thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs.