Couple's brief marriage meant husband should have smaller divorce pay-out in landmark ruling

Couples who divorce after only a brief marriage can no longer expect to have their assets split equally by default following an appeal court ruling.

Energy trader Julie Sharp, 44, successfully challenged a ruling that her former husband was entitled to half of the fortune she built up during their four year marriage.

She argued that "because this was a short marriage he should not get half of the matrimonial pot".

The Court of Appeal ruled in her favour, concluding that the £2.725 million payout previously awarded to Robin Sharp, an IT consultant, should be reduced to  £2 million.

Leading divorce lawyers warned that the ruling marked a "sea change" in how one of the basic principles of matrimonial law could now be applied to shorter marriages, creating yet another point of contention.

Alex Carruthers, partner at Hughes Fowler Carruthers,  said: "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.

"It was an area in which we had a pretty rigid rule. Now there is a caveat; in certain circumstances, we do not follow it.

"It creates a further issue for divorcing couples to bicker about, and for lawyers to profit from."

The judges heard that the Sharps had a "four-year marriage to separation", during which time they had no children and kept their finances separate.

The couple, who were described as being of "relatively modest" origins, were both earning around £100,000 when they met in 2007 but during the relationship, Mrs Sharp also received bonuses totalling £10.5 million.

They separated in 2013 when Mrs Sharp became aware her husband had been "a clandestine affair," the extent of which he only fully admitted in evidence to court in 2015.

Two years later, a family judge ruled that the "principled outcome" was that Mr Sharp, 43, should receive half of their total assets as no sufficient reason had been identified for departing from the established principle of equal division.

However, Lord Justice McFarlane, one of three judges sitting on the Court of Appeal panel, said there was "no impediment" to depart from that principle, concluding that in a short, dual career marriage in which the couple had kept their finances separate, it was indeed "justified".

The panel ruled on Tuesday that Mr Sharp's award should be reduced to £2 million, comprising a property valued at £1.1 million, to be transferred to him, plus a lump sum of £900,000.

Announcing the decision, Lord Justice McFarlane said: “The husband made no contribution to the source of the wife's bonuses and this is not a case where, save in the final year, the husband is said to have contributed more to the home life or welfare of the family than the wife.

"This case is, therefore, a 'non-business partnership, non-family asset case' where the bulk, indeed effectively all, of the property has been generated by the wife."

Mrs Sharp had "received bonuses way beyond the level of her previous earnings purely as a result of her employment and ... without any contribution, either domestic or business, from her husband."

The judge sought to quell potential discord by insisting that nothing in the judgment was "intended in any manner to unsettle the clear understanding that has been reached ... on the approach that is to be taken in the vast majority of cases".

He added: "The focus of the present appeal, which is very narrow, is upon whether there is a fringe of cases that may lie outside the equal sharing principle."

Jonathan Southgate QC, for Mr Sharp, argued that the introduction of litigation that took account of the length of a marriage and the type of assets when dividing matrimonial property was a "retrograde step" that would "lead to uncertainty in the law".

Andrew Newbury, a senior family lawyer with Hall Brown Family Law, described the likely impact of the ruling as "considerable".

He said: "Ever since a major ruling in 2000 in how couples should divide assets built up over the course of a marriage, it's generally been accepted that the split should be equal, regardless of how long a marriage might actually have lasted.

"The Court of Appeal's ruling is something of a sea change in how that concept of fairness should best be applied in relation to short marriages in particular."

Jo Edwards, partner at Forsters, said: “Whilst many will have a degree of sympathy with Mrs Sharp’s stance given the facts of the case, this judgment poses almost as many questions as it answers including: how long does a marriage have to be to be defined as ‘short’?; and at exactly what stage is someone entitled to share the wealth generated by their spouse?”