Abstract
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in the cases of Parlour and McFarlane raises important questions about the English courts` approach to property division and financial provision on relationship breakdown. The decision exemplifies English law`s pragmatic, needs-based approach, where the principles, if any, determining the courts` awards are frequently unarticulated. This paper contrasts English law with the approach of New Zealand, which has had mixed success with its attempt to adopt a more explicitly principled basis for property division and financial awards. It is argued that there are useful lessons for the development of English law from the experience of New Zealand and other Commonwealth jurisdictions, and from academic literature. Adoption of a clearer set of principles, particularly those based on notions of entitlement and compensation, rather than need, would provide increased certainty for litigants and a more satisfactory ideological foundation for the law.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.