\"Therefore, the law is now reasonably clear.
In the application of the sharing principle (as opposed to the needs principle) matrimonial property will normally be divided equally (see para 14(iii) of my judgment in N v F). By contrast, it will be a rare case where the sharing participle will lead to any distribution to the claimant of non-matrimonial property. Of course an award from non-matrimonial property to meet needs is a common place, but as Wilson LJ has pointed out we await the first decision where the sharing principle has led to an award from non-matrimonial property in excess of needs.
While matrimonial property will normally be divided equally, this is not an invariable rule. The reason for this is that sometimes the matrimonial property in question will not be the product of the endeavours of the parties within the social-economic partnership that is marriage (as Guest J described it in the Australian case of Farmer and Bramley  FamCA 1615 at para 188). Sometimes one party brings assets in which become \"part of the economic life of [the] marriage…utilised, converted, sustained and enjoyed during the contribution period\" (ibid at para 190). This is the concept of mingling referred to by me in N v F at para 9 (where I cited the remarks of Lord Nicholls in Miller & McFarlane at paras 24 – 25 and of Baroness Hale at para 148), and by Wilson LJ in K v L at para 18(b). But even if there has been much mingling the original non-matrimonial source of the money often demands reflection in the award. Thus in S v S  1 FLR 1496 Burton J divided the matrimonial property 60/40 to reflect this factor.
In Miller & McFarlane Lord Nicholls specified that the matrimonial home should always be designated matrimonial property, whatever its source. He stated at para 22 that \"the parties' matrimonial home, even if this was brought into the marriage at the outset by one of the parties, usually has a central place in any marriage. So it should normally be treated as matrimonial property for this purpose.\" This is reflected in the remarks of Wilson LJ in K v L at para 18(c). But even the matrimonial home is not necessarily divided equally under the sharing principle; an unequal division may be justified if unequal contributions to its acquisition can be demonstrated. In Vaughan v Vaughan  1 FLR 1108 Wilson LJ stated at para 49:
Such would be the award notwithstanding that the home had been owned by the husband, free of mortgage, since well before the marriage and that, putting to one side his misconduct in dissipating assets following the breakdown of the marriage (the effect of which is intended to be rectified by the calculation), the contributions of each party to the welfare of the family during the marriage were in effect agreed to have been equal in value albeit not in kind. Although, in the words of Baroness Hale in Miller v. Miller, McFarlane v. McFarlane  UKHL 24,  2 AC 618 at 663E, \"the importance of the source of the assets will diminish over time\", I consider that the husband's prior ownership of the home carried somewhat greater significance than either the district or circuit judge appears to have ascribed to it.\"
And on that bombshell............
I am new to this site had been looking at different opinions people have commented on which are very helpful when understanding complex matter in AR.
Can someone help me on some advice on my situation- I am now self repping as my solicitor is just dragging his feet? My case is now going on since Nov 2006. I am a single mother with one child of 9 years, I filed
petition in Jan 2008, received Decree Absolute in Oct 2009, Child Arrangements sorted, but the Financials carried on because there was money and property issues outstanding.
My Ex purchased a property while we were married with funds so he states from his family, and then transferred the property to his family 18 months before I filed the petition
. His family then sold it 3 months later.
My Solicitor has been trying now for 3.5 years to get retain this property but nothing has been achieved as yet.
I know the courts can revert property back if it has been disposed of but if the property now is in the hands of a new owner can anything be done as it is now coming to 5 years. By the way this was not the Mat home as we were living with his parents.
Can someone advice is this worth now pressing on or is my solicitor just ranking up the bill.