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
Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll