判决理由
In determining financial provision on divorce, there should be no discrimination between a breadwinner and a homemaker. The court should check any tentative award against the 'yardstick of equality' to ensure there is no discrimination. Departure from equality requires good reason.
事实
Mr and Mrs White were dairy farmers who had been married for 33 years. Both had contributed to the farming business, though Mr White's family had provided the initial capital. The trial judge awarded Mrs White approximately 40% of the assets. She appealed, arguing the award was too low.
判决摘要
The House of Lords held that in 'big money' cases where the assets exceed the parties' needs, the court should apply a 'yardstick of equality' as a cross-check against discrimination. Lord Nicholls emphasised that fairness requires the court not to discriminate between the breadwinner and the homemaker. The appeal was allowed in part.
关键引述
"As a general guide, equality should be departed from only if, and to the extent that, there is good reason for doing so."
— Lord Nicholls
"Whatever the division of labour chosen by the husband and wife, or forced upon them by circumstances, fairness requires that this should not prejudice or advantage either party."
— Lord Nicholls
后续处理
Applied and developed in Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006], which identified the three principles of needs, compensation, and sharing.