Grasping the nettle

As reported in The Times today and elsewhere, the Court of Appeal has found in favour of Dennis North, who was appealing against the decision last year to award £202,000 from his retirement fund to his ex-wife, Jean North, whom he divorced in 1978, although Mrs North may yet receive "some modest award". This well-publicised case raises two important and linked issues:

Firstly, it brings the law into disrepute when it seems to be so manifestly out of touch with the public perception of 'fairness'. The media has jumped on the basic facts: wife commits adultery, leaves husband to bring up the children, husband provides generously for her, wife gets into financial difficulty after living an extravagant lifestyle beyond her means, so wife comes back many years later for a 'second bite at the cherry', and wins. The Court of Appeal may now have put this right, but the damage has been done.

So why did the court below come to its decision? This brings me to my second point. The simple fact is that the law on financial settlements after divorce is now so uncertain that it has become a lottery. I won't criticise the District Judge in this case - he was working with a system in which Parliament gave very little guidance and so we have to rely upon a lengthening series of often conflicting judgments from the higher courts. There is now a clear need for statutory clarity in this important area, but unfortunately there appears to be no governmental will to grasp the nettle.


  1. I'LL criticise the District Judge. He's completely lunatic. He found that the ex-wife's problems were "entirely of her own making", that the ex-husband had no further responsibility for her, and THEN awarded her £202,000!

    It's unjust, unfair, and completely illogical.

    But don't take my word for it. Lord Justice Thorpe called the approach "fundamtentally flawed". Mr Justice Bennett called it an "illogical inconsistency" and said the District Judge has "jumped to the impermissible conclusion".

    And this guy sits in judgement over us??! He's an idiot!


Post a comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.