"Needs" case worked example

Some insight into how they do it for ordinary mortals?

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed90712

"Since separation, W remained with the children in the FMH and H had been renting.

At first instance, the District Judge ordered:

W to remain in the FMH for 2 years to give her time to adjust, whereupon the property would be sold.
On sale, the proceeds would be divided 70% (£151,835) to W and 30% (£65,072) to H (out of which H would have to pay his debts).
H to pay W £500 p.c.m. periodical payments without a s.28(1)(a) bar on extension.
H appealed. Moor J agreed that the judgment at first instance could be accurately criticised in 3 ways: it did not sufficiently reason the very significant departure from equality; in so far as there is a "needs" justification for departure it did not explain how the resulting capital order would fairly meet the needs of both parties; and it did not adequately explain the interplay between the periodical payments order and the capital order."

so what was the eventual outcome?

Survive

From what the article states it looks like the 70/30 split remained but the house had to be sold immediately and once sold the husband would no longer be liable for sm.