In the case of Julie Sharp v Robin Sharp, the Court of Appeal ruled a couple of days that the combination of potentially relevant factors - a short marriage, no children, dual incomes and separate finances - was sufficient to justify departing from an equal sharing principle to achieve overall fairness between the two parties.
The High Court, in November 2015, awarded Robin Sharp £2.7m, which represented half of the total matrimonial assets. Julie Sharp argued that her ex-husband should receive only £1.3m. The Court of Appeal ruled that Robin Sharp should be awarded £2m. It dismissed Julie Sharp's appeal against a December 2015 order requiring her to pay Robin Sharp £80,000 in costs as a contribution to his overall £200,000 costs bill.
'This groundbreaking ruling ultimately dictates that marriage is no longer a financial partnership in some circumstances. This raises far more questions than it answers. 'It opens the way for countless legal and philosophical arguments. There was previously no legal distinction between a "short" and a "long" marriage, and therefore no defined point after which wealth generated should be shared. 'The only clarity provided by this judgment is that there is now a further issue for divorcing couples to bicker about, and for lawyers to profit from.' In the judgment Lord Justice McFarlane said that Mrs Sharp received bonuses 'way beyond the level of her previous