Relationships

Footballers' Wives - Parlour v Parlour (UKCA)

The year was 1990. He was an apprentice soccer player, having recently signed a contract with Arsenal. She was three years his senior and employed by a local optician. By early 1991 Ray Parlour had progressed with Arsenal to become a full-time soccer professional. Due to his success, Ray encouraged his girlfriend Karen to give up her job and as a result, she became financially dependent on him.

The pair were very much in love and their relationship developed swiftly. Their engagement was announced in 1994 and in mid 1995, the couple commenced living together. Three children followed. Unfortunately for Ray and Karen, this fairytale romance did not end 'happily ever after'. The marriage disintegrated only three and a half years later.

Whilst resembling a subplot to an episode of Footballers' Wives, this is an account of the facts of a recent decision of the Court of Appeal in England. The highly publicised Parlour case (which was conjoined with the McFarlane case) resulted in the former wife of premiership footballer Ray Parlour being awarded a third of his salary for the next four years on top of a GBP 250,000 lump sum payment and the family home, worth approximately GBP 1 million.

Whilst the judgment is unlikely to considerably impact 'average earners', the decisions will be particularly relevant for those who command high salaries such as sporting and media personalities.

English law provides that upon divorce, relationship assets should be divided fairly between the parties. Judges are afforded a wide discretion, although the legislation provides a list of factors that should be taken into account. The concept of 'fairness' is a subjective one and as a result, over the years, the interpretation of the term has altered. The McFarlane and Parlour decisions reviewed the principles upon which periodical payments should be assessed.

Lord Justice Thorpe observed that the distinction between capital provision and periodical payments is no longer appropriate in the social and economic context of the 21st century and the Court recognised the overriding objective of fairness. Delivering the lead speech, Lord Justice Thorpe stated that "to award W [the wife] GBP 444,000 from March 2003 to June 2004 from this income, which derives in large measure from a [soccer] contract signed during the marriage, is wholly fair. It is a reasonable sharing of income. If it enables W to make savings then that is right and proper, on the facts of this case."

The McFarlane and Parlour decisions mirror the previous English landmark decision of White in 2000. In this judgment, for the first time, the House of Lords said that following a long marriage (provided the reasonable needs of both parties for housing and income had been realised) a fair division of capital should be measured against a "yardstick of equality".

Notably, for the first time the Court held that the contributions of a stay-at-home wife were deemed to be of equal value to those of a spouse working outside the home. The White decision however did not address the future earning capacity of the parties, predominantly due to the fact that the parties were in their sixties.

The decisions are relevant in light of family law legislation in New Zealand, namely the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. This Act provides for an element of judicial discretion where there is economic disparity between the parties at separation. The powers allow for equal sharing to be departed from to achieve equitable results based on a new principle of compensation (discussed in detail in a previous article).

Furthermore, explicit direction is provided that financial contributions are not to be presumed to be of greater value than non-financial contributions. No doubt practitioners in the United Kingdom and New Zealand alike will eagerly await future decisions in relation to this somewhat controversial judgment.

For more information, please contact:

Last updated: July 2004

This article is intended to be brief in nature and should be used for information only. It should not be relied on as legal advice.