header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 June 2020 / Stacey Nevin
Issue: 7889 / Categories: Features , Family , Divorce
printer mail-detail

High earners & sacrificed careers

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
22068
Stacey Nevin reports on the nuances of a successful appeal for ‘relationship generated disadvantage’
  • Looks at RC v JC, where the wife claimed for relationship generated disadvantage.
  • Claims for compensation are loss-related not needs-related.

In the recently reported case of RC v JC [2020] EWHC 466 (Fam), the respondent wife successfully pursued a claim for compensation for her ‘relationship generated disadvantage’. Giving judgment, Mr Justice Moor accepted ‘that it is unusual to find significant relationship generated disadvantage that may lead to compensation’ but was ‘clear that this is one such case’.

 

Principle of compensation

 

The principle of compensation was firmly established and last successfully used in the 2006 case of Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24. Since then, there have been no reported cases where the principle has been argued successfully, until RC v JC.

In McFarlane, the House of Lords identified three principles to guide the court when trying to achieve a fair outcome for the parties: needs (generously interpreted); compensation; and sharing. When considering compensation,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS
Read All
Legal notice: Notice under the Trustee Act 1925

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Emergency lawyers on call as international regulatory actions soar
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
NLJ this week: Assisted dying under the legal microscope
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll