It is clear from Lord Nicholls' leading speech that he intended much of what he said to apply to all matrimonial financial proceedings, not just big money ones.

This was not to introduce a presumption of equality in all cases, but "to ensure the absence of discrimination", for instance, between a wage earner, and a child-carer, thereby recognising the non-financial contribution of the parent caring for children.

The judge then capitalized the wife's income needs and assessed the cost of buying a home for her, awarded her a lump sum of £800,000 on a clean break basis, leaving the farms and business with the husband.

Her instructions were reversed by counsel who preferred to contend inter alia, that the judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the duration, extent, diversity and value of her contribution to the partnership and to recognize that her contributions were the dominant factor in the balancing act required by section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and that an award of approximately 40% of the total available net assets unfair and plainly wrong.

A clean break is an arrangement whereby the wife abandoned her right to claim monetary maintenance in return for a transfer by the husband of a capital asset, usually but not always, the matrimonial home, thus encouraging the parties to the marriage to put the past behind them.

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 section 23 & 24 empower the court to make financial and property (assets) provision orders when a decree of divorce is granted.