Elusive or Illusive? Fairness, the Family, and Family Law

Presentation to the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers’ 2015 annual conference.  (Full paper forthcoming):

The Commission on European Family Law grounds its 2013 Principles Regarding Property Relations[1] most fundamentally in equality,[2] expressed in terms of ‘equal rights and duties’.[3]  In terms of the underlying normative basis of the principles, Boele-Woelki, the Chair of the CEFL’s Organising Committee reasons:

In addition to equality between the spouses, the principles of sharing and fairness, solidarity, flexibility, legal certainty, protection of the weaker spouse, and the promotion of party autonomy are likewise of fundamental importance in this area of the law.[4]

Whilst recognising that the principles relate to matrimonial property, rather than also maintenance, pension sharing, and so forth, it is nevertheless noteworthy that Boele-Woelki positions ‘fairness’ as no more foundational than the other principles and sitting alongside concerns such as legal certainty.  But is this right?  Perhaps more critically as lawyers, (why) does it matter whether this posited hierarchy is correct or not?  Should we concern ourselves whether ‘equality’ or ‘fairness’ is the singular fundamental principle?

Answers to such questions turn on a better understanding of the concept of ‘fairness’ itself.  Yet, are any answers readily to be found?  The CEFL notes the need for ‘fairness’, amongst other aims, in relation to both of its proposed default regimes, participation in acquisitions and community of acquisitions.[5]  No definition of ‘fairness’ is provided.  In 1989, the Council of Europe placed economic independence at the core of the financial consequences of relationship breakdown.  The first way in which this was to be achieved was by using matrimonial property regimes to ‘grant[.] to a former spouse the right to obtain a fair share in the property of the other’.[6]  This itself is question-begging as ‘fairness’ is here proposed as a means to upholding respect for autonomy.  Is it ‘fair’ to impose autonomy on weaker spouse, particularly at the cost of another, who is also more commonly in straightened rather than prosperous circumstances?

There is a sense in which both the CEFL and the Council of Europe treat the concept of ‘fairness’ as self-explanatory.  In struggling to either refute or substantiate such proposals for the place and purpose of ‘fairness’, however, we may well ask if it has any conceptual core.  What does the reference to ‘fairness’ achieve or seek to achieve in this context?  Doubts over its usefulness might be heightened by noting that a number of IAML fellows’ responses to the circulated conference questionnaire indicated that their understanding of ‘fairness’ in practice differed from the law as expressed in their jurisdictions.[7]


Argument and Outline

In what follows, I examine from a comparative perspective the strategies adopted in various jurisdictions to embody ‘fairness’.

I begin by discussing strategies systems make about how to incorporate ‘fairness’ – whether to crystallise in legislation or judicial pronouncement; and what evidence, if ‘fairness’ is not explicitly incorporated, we may draw to suggest ‘fairness’ may nevertheless have been incorporated.  I discuss how ‘fairness’ relates to default matrimonial property regimes and how that compares to its place in the common law (non-)regime.

I disagree with the recent trend of drawing on outcomes alone to argue that the “pillarised”[8] civil law approach is not so dissimilar from the “holistic”[9], discretionary, and fact-based common law approach.  Central to this argument is the suggestion that ‘fairness’ is intimately connected to understanding ‘family law’ in an attitudinal sense, rather than in the conventional sense of the substantive legal domain covered.  I argue that a ‘family law’ attitude means treating the relationship under consideration as special.  Specialness necessitates that the relationship itself or aspects thereof ground a response that would be unavailable in the general law.  The uniqueness of the response may relate to the process of reasoning or the outcome reached, whether in terms of the outcome having a unique normative basis or being a substantive outcome otherwise unavailable.  This attitudinal understanding of ‘family law’ has consequences for which relationships should be viewed through the lens of ‘fairness’.

After discussing four facets of ‘fairness’ – rhetoric, process, outcomes, and institutional ‘fairness’ – I proceed to examine how we might evaluate the ‘fairness’ of individual systems.  This entails brief consideration of three values which inform ‘fairness’ – equality, autonomy, and vulnerability.  I conclude that responding to vulnerability via provision for ‘needs’ represents a baseline for the content of ‘fairness’, though I raise doubts about the implication that all jurisdictions that theoretically allow provision for ‘needs’, no matter how limited, should be seen as adopting a ‘fair’ approach.

I conclude by highlighting that the search for ‘fairness’ is fundamentally concerned with how we conceptualise disputes, such that there may be a ‘right’ cluster of values to guide decision-making, but no ‘right’ answer, no single better weighting of those values in practice.  Jurisdictional context is critical, and entails fit with underlying social, cultural, political, and economic norms.

[1] Katharina Boele-Woelki et al, Principles of European Family Law Regarding Property Relations between Spouses (Cambridge, UK: Intersentia, 2013).

[2] Katharina Boele-Woelki, ‘General Rights and Duties in the CEFL Principles on Property Relations between Spouses’ in Katharina Boele-Woelki, Nina Dethloff, and Werner Gephart, eds, Family Law and Culture in Europe: Developments, Challenges and Opportunities (Cambridge, UK: Intersentia, 2014) 3-12, 6.

[3] Boele-Woelki et al (n 1) Principle 4.2.

[4] ibid 6.

[5] ibid 147 (Principle 4.17) and 220 (Principle 4.34).

[6] Council of Europe, Recommendation No R (89) 1 (18 January 1989), Principle 1.

[7] Personal communications from IAML fellows in response to the ‘Fair is foul’ survey, circulated July 2015.

[8] Dutta, cited in Jens M Scherpe, ‘Towards a Matrimonial Property Regime for England and Wales’ in Rebecca Probert and Chris Barton, eds, Fifty Years in Family Law: Essays for Stephen Cretney (Cambridge, UK: Intersentia, 2012) 133-146, 138.  In addition to matrimonial property, the other critical ‘pillars’ are maintenance and pension-sharing.  Scherpe also mentions the allocation of the use of the matrimonial home.

[9] Scherpe, ibid 138.


A copy of the powerpoint presentation is available here.

Wyatt v Vince: The Reality of Individualised Justice – Financial Orders, Forensic Delay, and Access to Justice

In Wyatt v Vince, the Supreme Court was called upon to consider the correct interpretation of rule 4.4 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, which governs the court’s power to strike out a statement of case. The Court of Appeal’s 2013 decision, from which the wife appealed, was the first reported decision on the interpretation of rule 4.4. This case commentary examines the Supreme Court’s unanimous judgment in detail. Whilst the judicial interpretation of rule 4.4 resolves the matter before the court, Lord Wilson’s judgment contains critical analysis of the nature of ‘needs’ and ‘contributions’ within the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 25 exercise, both independently and as they relate to delay. The court responds to the ‘forensic delay’ on the facts by narrowing its construction of ‘needs’ to those generated by the relationship and treating delay as a countervailing consideration to weigh against ‘contributions.’ The former reasoning raises the possibility of a more coherent, interpersonal theoretical basis for financial provision upon relationship breakdown more generally. The latter arguably constructs delay as a substantive consideration, which strengthens the social obligation basis for financial provision.

This paper is published in (2015) 27: 2 Child and Family Law Quarterly 195-208, and also available here.

Law Society Gazette: Letter to Editor – ‘Final and binding’ awards in family law

Setting the record straight: family law arbitration is not binding

Dennis Sheridan’s article (13 March) on family law arbitration sets out the key benefits of the new IFLA scheme but risks being dangerously misleading in one respect, namely that ‘awards’ made under the scheme are ‘final and binding’.  More worryingly, he makes this claim in relating what an appointed IFLA scheme arbitrator said to clients in the early stages of proceedings.

Just because Article 13.3 of the IFLA scheme Rules describes the ‘award’ as ‘final and binding’ subject to limited grounds of challenge and appeal, does not make it so.  Indeed, Article 13.4 of the Rules recognises that it may be necessary for the parties to apply to the courts to get an order in the same or similar terms as the award/part thereof.

It is technically incorrect to say that these ‘awards’ are binding.  Trite as it is, jurisdiction to make final financial awards is the court’s alone.  Nuptial agreements are not binding, and arbitration is not a special case.  Section 81(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 makes clear that the court’s jurisdiction is unaffected here and s25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 applies.  Even if arbitrated awards were treated as akin to s34(1) MCA 1973 maintenance agreements, so as to withstand s81(1)(a) AA 1996, s81(1)(c) entitles a court to refuse to recognise and/or enforce an ‘award’ on public policy grounds.   Any case in which a judge would reach a different result under s25 than under the ‘award’ should satisfy s81(1)(c).

Second, even if a judge would be unlikely to override an arbitrated ‘award’, it is misleading to describe that factual reality with the legal terminology of bindingness.  We do not pretend that the agreement that forms the basis of a Consent Order is binding before the order is made, so why would we do so for arbitrated ‘awards’?  Talking about ‘awards’ that are unlikely to be overridden – ‘as good as binding’? – as ‘binding’ is liable to confuse the public.  Why risk litigants misunderstanding their own legal right to apply to court for a binding order?   Further, religiously-based arbitrators understand their limits; why risk the public misunderstanding the nature of religious tribunals’ work?  The current law is based on the concern that only the court can sufficiently protect the parties’ interests in these disputes, hence only it can make binding decisions.  If we no longer think this is the case, we need to have that debate, not pretend we have already had it.

Family law arbitration may have many benefits for the right type of parties in the right type of dispute.  But a ‘final and binding’ decision is not one of them.

Arbitration in Financial Dispute Resolution: The Final Step to Reconstructing the Default(s) and Exception(s)?

In this article, I argue for caution in embracing family arbitration as a new form of private ordering for resolving parties’ financial disputes. I explain that family arbitration may be more successful than other forms of private ordering and final court hearings in enabling certain types of parties to resolve certain types of disputes. Given that lawyer-led negotiations remain the most common form of out-of-court resolution, however, family arbitration’s impact may not be numerically significant. But family arbitration may be much more important in normative terms. Together with the transformation in approach to nuptial agreements, we may soon reach the position where it is no longer accurate to say that we are bargaining in the shadow of the default regime – the factual default of private ordering may become the autonomy-based normative default. I question whether this is a desirable step for family law, at least before we have resolved the underlying policy debate.

This paper is published in (2013) 35: 1 Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 115-138, and available here.

Family, Social Inequalities, and the Persuasive Force of Interpersonal Obligation

To date, the privatization of the costs of social inequalities for women and children has been criticized predominantly from a policy perspective. This article seeks to make a stronger case against remedying social inequalities through private law obligations by addressing the theoretical difficulties with such privatization with a particular focus on familial obligations. I take my core examples from the current Canadian understanding of the spousal and child support obligations. My analysis proposes and proceeds on the basis of a new discourse for obligations traditionally grouped together as “Family Law” obligations: first, interpersonal obligations, which arise from and tie together two citizens through either a single interaction or through their relationship as a whole; second, social obligations, which are owed by the community as a whole to individual citizens. I argue that the persuasive force of the focus on an individual’s responsibility for another’s financial need has obscured the reality of the state’s obligation, the broader social obligation, to respond to this need. I conclude with a discussion of the consequences of my analysis for the future of the spousal and child support obligations. If we deny an expanded role to these support obligations, can we do so in a way that avoids leaving the impoverished in an even more precarious position?

This paper is published in (2008) 22 International Journal of Law, Policy, and the Family 61-90, and also available here.