Law Commission on divorce

Thanks to John Bolch for this link

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/divorce-judge...ut-plan-8398610.html

"new formula would set upper and lower limits for settlements"

This is old hat that the papers seem to dredge up to fill copy, its optional in Canada but nothing more than that.

"But Professor Elizabeth Cooke, who is overseeing the Law Commission’s efforts to reform divorce law and unveiled details at a meeting at London’s Inner Temple attended by some of the country’s most senior judges, said the idea could improve the way cases were resolved.

Lord Justice Munby, a Court of Appeal judge, welcomed the idea. He said: “If criminal practitioners can live with it and if personal injury practitioners can live with it, why can’t we?”

Under the system, judges would be able to vary payouts — but in most cases the new formula would set upper and lower limits for settlements. For childless couples, the length of the marriage and difference in income would determine the settlement and how long support continues after divorce. For parents, the number of children would be the key factor.

Baroness Hale, a Supreme Court judge and the country’s most senior female member of the judiciary, told the meeting that she was “really very sympathetic” towards what the Law Commission was trying to do."

Law Commission seem now to be promoting the idea?
Is it just about codifying/making transparent what judges already do - ie apply a set of locally pre-agreed rules as long as they don''t produce unfairness - or is this now about agreeing and applying the rules on a national/E&W basis and removing judges'' unlimited discretion to achieve fairness in "all the circumstances of the case"?

The idea is that judges would have guide lines like they do when sentencing, so you murder its mandatory life manslaughter more loose guidelines, so the Canadian idea is that if you were married so many years have x number of kids there would be an upper and lower limit for global asset division.

Practically its impossible though, it would work well if you were married one year with no kids you were both born and live here and are healthy and able to work, you could just say you both keep what you have.

But what if you were married for 20 years husband is 65 wife 40 kids 4-6 and 19 at uni, dad is about to retire mum has just found out she has cancer, oldest lives with dad the other with mum, mum is a doctor earning 100k dad has a pension which will pay £1000 per month, mums pension CETV 200k before actuary, FMH equity 150k bugger all else as assets, the eldest kid with dad is blind and needs lots of help, the FMH is adapted for him, mum and the two other kids are in rented, they both say they need the FMH.

What kind of mathematical equation could work that out?.

These ideas come and go, they spend a fortune debating and then nothing changes, the meat of the law has hardly changed since 1973, it gets tweaked, new case law plods by, but it is what it is.

From what little i know of Scots law they would do better to take from that if anything.