Friday, March 23, 2012
Separating homosexuals should not share assets in same way as heterosexuals?
The case is reported in The Telegraph
They could of course raise a contribution argument - an asset should be ringfenced because it was acquried a long time before the relationship began. The counter argument to that, and the one that has succeeded so far is one of need. This was the matrimonial home which after Miller V Miller in Supreme Court takes special priority - even if one party did contribute everything.
The Judges will have to ensure their judgement is fair... someone will be unhappy...