A city financier has taken his case to the Court of Appeal to argue that his ex whom he separated from in 2008, after a Civil Partnership of only 7 months but cohabitation of 11 years should not have a share of his assets acquired prior to the relationship.
Why not? Equal rights but only if it works in my favour, otherwise selective equal rights? They are arguing that husband and wives are different because they are more likely to have children. They also argue that a homosexual couple are more likely to have joint careers. I disagree – plenty of homosexuals support their partner but also so what? The case should be decided on its own facts not on what one side terms the norm.
The case is reported in The Telegraph.
They could of course raise a contribution argument – an asset should be ring-fenced because it was acquired 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…