Marital property is deemed to be held in common by both parties. Mr Charman expects us to sympathise with his generosity in offering to transfer property to which he has no title. While the concept of need necessarliy informs an award of aliment it can play no part in the division of common property. Mr Charman's argument not only has no legal basis it also suffers from a failure of logic: £20 million is claimed to 'far exceed' what his wife (or any reasonable person?) needs to live on yet he argues that he needs £111 million!

dmcdm, Stirling,

Its this kind of ridiculous nonsense which means I must remain unmarried for the rest of my life unless prenups become enforceable.
The law effectively is a barrier to marriage, that cannot be desirable or right.

Dijit, glasgow,

Surely there ought to be a different yardstick in big money cases to low-income cases. They are not just a difference in degree they are a difference in kind. If a household income is low then the maintenance needs of the children and the claimant spouse need to be satisfied (see White v White (2000)). This is not the issue where there are huge sums of money at stake: both maintenance and compensation - for lost earnings - have been accounted for. All that remains is 'sharing': of what conceptual strength is this?

owen, Cambridge,

This is certainly an improvement from when I was divorced 18 years ago. I was awarded the princely sum of 10p a year to bring up my then 6 year old son and had to remortgage my house (which incidentally I had paid for to start with) to pay him half of its value.
Bet you guys think the law was fairer in those days!

Anne, Huddersfield, UK

Well said Magdalene of Canterbury, that SHOULD be how any couple in crisis behaves....and even those who are not! What is the point, afterall, of promising to remain faithful to one person for life, if you are not going to fight to maintain the status quo?
I read the article and I am inclined to agree with both the husband, and Kauri, but, Kauri he needn't have got married in the first place! Leaving a cool £131million pounds in his charge! The key question in this case (only) is: How much did the wife help and support him in making the family wealth? Did she just do the housewife thing and that's it, or did she supply ideas and have a more proactive role? A housewife can "earn" as little as bed and board! I do believe, therefore, Mr Charman's offer of £20million is enough, for the former role, but not the latter. A judge would maybe consider HOW MUCH help she gave making the money....but, saddest of all, there even has to be this argument at all.

tim, Naples, Italy

As a female law student about to graduate I think the judgement is nothing but fair. Raised by a single parent with little financial support from my father I feel qualified to say this! The 50/50 yardstick was long overdue in 2000. Men have walked away from their responsibilites for far too long. In the words of Thorpe LJ, "There must be an end to the sterile assertion that the breadwinner's contribution weighs heavier than the homemaker's". Although Mrs C has received £48mil, this is a reasonable sum in consideration of total marital assests of £131mil. It is disgusting that Mr C and other men continue to agrue this matter - the court should award more for his greed after nearly 30 years marriage. For two people who once loved and shared their lives equality is nothing but reasonable. It is disheartening to hear comments to the contrary. Cohabitants will be next on the agenda for the courts, and rightly so.

Emma, Bradford, West Yorkshire

I have been following this with gritted teeth. Surely, there is a difference if you have been married 30 or 3 years.
That guy couldn't have made his fortune if his wife had taken care of everything else, had kept his back free. If a young woman marries a wealthy older man and wants a big settlement upon their divorce 3 years later - now that's a totally different issues. I don't think they should be entitled to the same treatment as a partner of 30 years. No way.
In several other countries the issue of divorce settlements is being dealth with in this way: what each partner had before the marriage is theirs and theirs alone, what was accumulated during their time together before they officially split up is shared 50/50? This honours the input any spouse (in most cases still the wife) had in keeping the chief earner's back free to earn these shedloads of money.

Kauri, London, UK

Dont bother with prenuptial contracts, there will always be a smart lawyer to get round it for a fat fee.

The only safe thing to do is not to marry at all.

Knightly, Basel, Switzerland

Glen Monk's question earlier is very valid:

Why is the divoice rate so High?

We are too busy to communicate with each other even we are living under one roof, or even sleeping in the same bed.

Think about it.

Communicate and Express your feeling to each other is the key to maintain a good relationship.

Have we lost it all?

magdalene mei halkes, Canterbury, England

This verdict is truly inspiring for us lucky chaps in the UK, because before now I myself had certainly lacked the incentive to become a multi-millionaire. This has really done it for me. I don't know about you guys, but I just can't wait to get married now, knowing that if I ever became incredibly sucessful I'd have the privilege of being coerced by the legal system into parting with a huge slice of the funds and assets that I'd have taken decades to build up, having starting off with nothing. It's such a shame that women in their 30's and 40's just don't want to get married anymore either. All that wealth and nobody to give it to.

Oh well, guess I'll just have to suffer being a carefree bachelor, with a comfortable life, comparatively little stress, and no debts whatsoever.

With those wonderfuly clever pre nuptial agreements being the 'in thing' to have these days, who now can dare say that romance and the idea of ever lasting love is forever dead and buried?

C. Smith, Bournmouth, UK

Mr McLean,

I fear your view of marriage is a rather naive one which would be of little assistance in settling divorce disputes. If we are going to analyse marriage in purely contractual terms then perhaps we should introduce contractual concepts like mistake, misrepresentation and frustration.

The fact of the matter is that people change and marriages don't always last. Divorce litigation should focus on a swift and effectively settlement, with costs kept to a minimum.

It really doesn't help when there is a general bemoaning that marriage is for life etc. The world is a very different place to the one in which our parents and grandparents grew up. What is needed, I suggest, is a bit less sentimentalism, and a bit more pragmatism.

Rob Cheeseman, Derby, UK

I am not qualified to comment on whether this judgement is correct in law but I can’t help wondering what their children make of Mrs Charman’s persistence? She had the good grace to admit that £48m is a huge sum. Most would also consider that her husband’s original offer of £20 m was also a ‘huge sum,’ which ,wisely invested, would bring an income of at least £500,000 a year. Even in expensive Sevenoaks, where Mrs Charman lives, you would live pretty high on hog with £500K a year!
Nevertheless, Mrs Charman felt she had to fight for even more. The real winners in this case have been the lawyers on both sides who, I suspect, will profit to the tune of more than £1m in fees. The losers are their children, who will ultimately suffer these legal costs and who have had to witness the unedifying sight of their parents fighting in court over sums of money that, to most people, seem obscene. Mrs Charman’s personal pride clearly exerts a stronger pull than maternal common sense!

Kevin, Kent,

Malcolm McLean -

That isn't a prenuptial contract. It's a nuptial commitment. The one precludes the other; if we could all live up to our commitments, the contracts would be pointless.

Michael Bruce, Selby, Yorkshire

In my case she was awarded 2 houses, Car and a plot of land. She also had all house furniture and car. And as the case happened i paid 22k of her court costs admittedly there were children involved. So why is it 50-50 when the guy has money and 95-5 when he hasnt. Think about it why is the divorce rates so high? Because a woman cant lose. And i was the one who was dumped! The governement want to generate a family culture then they need to take a good hard look at this law

Glen Monk, Bedford,

Unfortunately it seems that 'equality only goes one way'. In my partner's case his ex wife got the house, contents, car and 26% of his net income FOR LIFE. He had no house of his own and no car. Even when the children leave home she will still get the same sum.
I do believe women should be treated equally even if they stay at home and look after children but I see no justice from the court in my partner's case.

J Jackson, East Midlands, England

We already have prenuptial contracts. They state "for richer and for poorer", "with all my worldly goods I thee endow" and "until death do us part".

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

Mrs Charman states that ''It has been a difficult time, not just for me but for our family''. But not so difficult it seems that she felt compelled to turn down £20,000,000.

I'll just write that again just so we all understand just how difficult a time she was having and that it couldn't be salved by £20,000,000!!

Andy Brim, Brighton, England