In family law, the concept of “needs” sits at the heart of financial remedy proceedings. While the statutory framework applies equally to all divorcing couples, the way needs are identified, assessed, and ultimately met can look very different in higher‑income or high‑asset cases.
Where there is more money than is strictly necessary to meet basic living expenses, the court’s task becomes more about balancing fairness, lifestyle, autonomy, and future security.
Here, we look at what counts as “needs” in higher‑income divorces, whether there is any clear definition, how lifestyle influences the assessment, and what happens when one party’s needs are comfortably met by less than a 50% share of the assets.
Is there a legal definition of “needs”?
There is no statutory definition of what constitutes needs in divorce. Instead, needs are assessed through application of section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. This includes all the circumstances of the case, with first consideration given to the welfare of any minor children. Following which a list of factors including income, earning capacity, property, financial resources, and the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage factored into the calculations.
As a result, needs is a flexible, fact‑specific concept. In higher‑income cases, needs are often described as being assessed generously, reflecting the reality that the parties lived well during the marriage and should not face an abrupt or artificial drop in living standards on divorce, unless the available resources make that unavoidable.
However, the absence of a definition also means that needs are not automatically equated with wants. The court’s role is to distinguish between what is reasonably required to live independently and securely, and what would amount to an unnecessary continuation of excess or luxury at the other party’s expense.
Is past matrimonial lifestyle a dictator of needs?
The standard of living during the marriage is a central reference point, particularly in higher‑income divorces. Where parties enjoyed a comfortable or affluent lifestyle, such as living in a large property, taking regular holidays, employing help, or maintaining multiple vehicles, the court will usually accept that needs should be assessed at a higher level than in an average‑income case.
That said, lifestyle is a guide, not a guarantee. The court will not simply replicate the matrimonial lifestyle if the resources do not allow for two households to be maintained at the same level as one. Even in very wealthy cases, the court may still draw a line between a reasonable continuation of lifestyle and an expectation that everything remains exactly the same.
Importantly, lifestyle evidence is more persuasive where it is consistent and long‑standing. A brief period of higher spending towards the end of the marriage, or expenditure driven by borrowing rather than income, is unlikely to carry the same weight as a stable pattern over many years.
What influences a spouse’s needs up or down?
Several factors can increase or decrease the level of needs identified in a higher‑income divorce:
- Age and health play a significant role. An older spouse, or one with health issues affecting their ability to work, is likely to have higher long‑term income and capital needs than a younger, healthy spouse with time to rebuild earnings.
- In higher‑income cases, one spouse may have stepped back from a lucrative career to support the family or the other party’s business. Where earning capacity has been reduced or lost, needs may be assessed more generously to reflect that disadvantage. In contrast, where a spouse has strong earning potential, the court may expect them to meet more of their own income needs over time by returning to work in some capacity.
- Childcare responsibilities can also influence needs. A parent with primary care of children may require a larger home, greater flexibility, and higher ongoing costs, all of which feed into the assessment.
- In longer marriages, especially those where roles were clearly divided, needs tend to be viewed through a long‑term lens. In shorter marriages, particularly without children, the court may be less willing to support needs that extend far into the future.
How does a spouse demonstrate their needs?
Needs are typically evidenced through detailed financial disclosure within the Form E financial statement. This document requires each party to set out their income, assets, liabilities and anticipated future expenditure in detail.
In higher‑income cases, budgets are often scrutinised closely, with the court looking for realism, consistency, and justification. Inflated or poorly evidenced figures can undermine credibility, whereas a carefully prepared budget that aligns with historic spending patterns is more likely to be accepted.
Supporting documents, such as bank statements, credit card records, and evidence of past expenditure, can be used to demonstrate that claimed needs reflect genuine lifestyle patterns rather than aspirational figures.
What if needs change over time?
Needs are not fixed, and the court recognises that circumstances evolve, particularly in longer‑term arrangements involving spousal maintenance.
If a spouse’s needs increase because of unforeseen events such as ill health, loss of employment, or changes in childcare arrangements, it may be possible to apply for a variation of a maintenance order, provided the original order allows for this.
Equally, needs may decrease over time if a spouse returns to work, receives an inheritance, or their housing costs reduce. In such cases, ongoing support may be reduced or brought to an end, reflecting the expectation that parties should become financially independent where possible.
Needs versus sharing: Is 50/50 always the starting point?
In high‑asset divorces, there is often a tension between the principles of needs and sharing. While equality is frequently described as a starting point, it is not an automatic outcome.
Where a 50% share of the assets would significantly exceed a spouse’s reasonable needs, the court may award less than half, particularly if the wealth was generated by one party and there are no compelling reasons to depart from a needs‑based approach.
This is more likely in cases where the assets are very substantial, and meeting needs does not require anything close to an equal division. The reason behind this is that fairness does not require one party to receive more than they reasonably need simply for the sake of equality.
However, this does not mean that a spouse is capped at bare needs. In many higher‑income cases, needs are assessed at a level that results in a division not far removed from equality with the award framed as meeting needs rather than sharing surplus.
Ultimately, the assessment of needs reflects a balance between generosity and restraint. The court aims to meet reasonable expectations without creating unjustified windfalls, ensuring that outcomes are fair not only on paper, but in practical terms too.