Henry v Henry [2010] UKPC 3 [2010] 1 All ER 988

Facts

• The case concerned the equitable division of matrimonial assets following the breakdown of a marriage.
• The dispute focused on the respective contributions and sacrifices each party made during the marriage.
• The wife made significant non-financial contributions, including giving up her career to care for the family.
• The husband served as the family's primary breadwinner, making direct financial contributions.
• The marital partnership benefitted from both the wife's unpaid support and the husband's financial input.

Issues

1. Whether the division of matrimonial assets should reflect both financial and non-financial contributions, including career sacrifices.
2. How the principle of proportionality should be applied in assessing detriment and dividing assets fairly.
3. Whether future needs arising from sacrifices made during the marriage should influence the division of the property.

Decision

• The Privy Council held that both financial and non-financial contributions must be given due weight in the equitable distribution of matrimonial assets.
• The division of assets must be proportionate to the sacrifices and detriment experienced by each spouse.
• Non-financial contributions, particularly career disruptions for family care, require proper recognition in asset division.
• The wife's diminished career prospects, resulting from her sacrifices during the marriage, warranted a larger share of the assets.
• The court rejected a mathematical formula approach, emphasising a qualitative and flexible assessment of the particular facts.

Legal Principles

• Proportionality requires a division of assets reflecting the relative detriment and sacrifices of each spouse, including non-financial contributions such as homemaking and childcare.
• Fairness in asset division entails a comprehensive assessment of both parties' contributions, not limited to direct financial input.
• The application of proportionality should be flexible and case-specific, eschewing rigid formulas in favour of tailored justice.
• Future needs must be considered to ensure long-term fairness, especially where one spouse's earning capacity is affected by marital sacrifices.

Conclusion

The Privy Council affirmed that fair division of matrimonial assets depends on a proportionate assessment of each spouse's contributions and detriment, requiring flexibility, recognition of non-financial sacrifices, and consideration of future needs to achieve an equitable outcome.