Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 1 FLR 1186
Judgment date: 24 May 2006
Related
Keep Calm and Carry on: A v M in a Wells World
[2026] 2 FRJ 114. This article takes a closer look at how Carry was shared in the cases of A v M and ED v AP, and the different approaches adopted for its assessment. It concludes by proposing an alternative method by which Carry can be shared when the timing of future receipts is unknown.
Cross-examination in Financial Remedy Claims
[2026] 2 FRJ 88. Cross-examination can have a material impact on the court’s findings of fact and determination of issues. This article is written for the occasional cross-examiner, as an aide mémoire of the rules, as a guide to doing the job well.
50 Years on from Martin v Martin 1976 – Are Add-backs Fit for Purpose?
[2026] 2 FRJ 94. Add-backs were a useful mechanism to prevent one party’s unilateral dissipation of assets which unfairly prejudiced the non-dissipating spouse’s share. But something has gone wrong when the outcomes deviate too far from what the average person considers fair.
Related
Keep Calm and Carry on: A v M in a Wells World
[2026] 2 FRJ 114. This article takes a closer look at how Carry was shared in the cases of A v M and ED v AP, and the different approaches adopted for its assessment. It concludes by proposing an alternative method by which Carry can be shared when the timing of future receipts is unknown.
Cross-examination in Financial Remedy Claims
[2026] 2 FRJ 88. Cross-examination can have a material impact on the court’s findings of fact and determination of issues. This article is written for the occasional cross-examiner, as an aide mémoire of the rules, as a guide to doing the job well.
50 Years on from Martin v Martin 1976 – Are Add-backs Fit for Purpose?
[2026] 2 FRJ 94. Add-backs were a useful mechanism to prevent one party’s unilateral dissipation of assets which unfairly prejudiced the non-dissipating spouse’s share. But something has gone wrong when the outcomes deviate too far from what the average person considers fair.
Latest
Keep Calm and Carry on: A v M in a Wells World
[2026] 2 FRJ 114. This article takes a closer look at how Carry was shared in the cases of A v M and ED v AP, and the different approaches adopted for its assessment. It concludes by proposing an alternative method by which Carry can be shared when the timing of future receipts is unknown.
Thwaite – The Jury Remains Out
[2026] 2 FRJ 99. Does the Thwaite jurisdiction still exist? If it does, what is its appropriate scope? The Court of Appeal will be required to decide.
Cross-examination in Financial Remedy Claims
[2026] 2 FRJ 88. Cross-examination can have a material impact on the court’s findings of fact and determination of issues. This article is written for the occasional cross-examiner, as an aide mémoire of the rules, as a guide to doing the job well.