Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

Family Law

The leading authority on all aspects of family law

12 APR 2017

Work v Gray [2017] EWCA Civ 270

Work v Gray [2017] EWCA Civ 270

(Court of Appeal, Sir Terence Etherton MR, King, Moylan LJJ, 11 April 2017)

Financial remedies – Special contribution

The husband’s appeal from a financial remedies order was dismissed.

The husband and wife were married in 1995. Two years later the husband started working for a private equity firm and he moved to Japan where he was later joined by the wife. During their time living in Japan they had two children. The husband left the private equity firm in 2008 and the family returned to the UK.

When the marriage broke down in 2013 the wife petitioned for divorce and sought financial remedies. In assessing the husband’s claim that he had made a special contribution, the judge found that although he had performed very well in his job, there was no evidence to demonstrate that it could not have been performed by someone else. There had also been an element of being in the right place at the right time. The wife moving to live in Japan had been a very significant contribution. The judge concluded that the husband had not made an unmatched special contribution of the kind that warranted an unequal division of the matrimonial property.

The husband appealed seeking an unequal division of the matrimonial property of 61% in his favour.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal made it clear that in determining whether a party had made a special contribution fairness had to be considered and the need to ensure that there was no discrimination between the husband and wife and their respective roles. A case of special contribution should not be advanced unless the contribution was so marked that to disregard it would be inequitable.

In this case the judge had correctly stated the law and approach to be applied in cases of special contribution and had not erred. The decision to reject the husband’s assertion of a special contribution was one the judge was entitled to reach and had been fully reasoned.


Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWCA Civ 270

Case No: B6/2015/1092

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM
MR JUSTICE HOLMAN
FAMILY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Date: 11/04/2017

Before:


THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS


LADY JUSTICE KING


and


LORD JUSTICE MOYLAN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Between:


WILLIAM RANDALL WORK
Appellant


- and -


MANDY C GRAY
Respondent


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Nicholas Cusworth QC, Tim Owen QC (who did not appear), Richard Castle and Deepak Nagpal
(instructed by Hughes Fowler Carruthers) for the Appellant
Tim Bishop QC, Maya Lester QC, Michael Bradley and Oliver Jones
(instructed by Payne Hicks Beach) for the Respondent


Hearing dates: 7th and 8th February 2017


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Approved Judgment


Work v Gray [2017] EWCA Civ 270.rtf
Emergency Remedies in the Family Courts

Emergency Remedies in the Family Courts

"A very good tool for the busy family lawyer" Solicitors Journal

Available in Family Law Online

Family Court Practice, The

(Red Book)

Pre-order the 2017 edition today

More Info from £498.00
Available in Family Law Online
Subscribe to our newsletters