Traditionally, it was common for one partner to look after the children and perform household duties while the other went to work to earn a living. Although in today's society it has become increasingly common for both partners to work, it still remains the case that one partner may sacrifice or compromise their career for the benefit of the family or relationship.

The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 provides for equal sharing of relationship property. However, equal sharing of property is unlikely to be fair when one partner stops their career, for example, to look after the children or pursues a different career to accommodate family dynamics. After the relationship, the earning partner continues in the workplace and enjoys the higher income that has been achieved because of the division of functions in their relationship.

Section 15 "economic disparity" claims help resolve this "inequality." Where the "income and living standards" of the earning partner are likely to be "significantly higher" once the relationship ends, the court may award compensation or order the transfer of relationship property to the non-earning partner.

The effect of an economic disparity claim is to "top up" the non-earning partner. This goes against the general equal sharing presumption of relationship property under the Act.

The difference in income and living standards between the partners must be caused by how the relationship was run. For example, a partner gives up her accounting career and travels to London so that her partner can work in a London hospital earning "big bucks." Giving up your career or making some other sacrifice for your partner is characteristic of economic disparity claims.

Economic disparity claims are, however, rarely successful. An estimated 20 per cent of claims fail because the difference in income and living standards are not caused by how the relationship was run. Your claim is unlikely to succeed where the disparity is caused by illness, disability, or redundancy.

If your claim passes this causation hurdle, the court has discretion to order an award. Previous cases had used a "broad brush" approach which took into account a range of factors. The current trend is to apply a formula to calculate your economic disparity award. This considers the extent of the disparity in income and living standards and effectively halves your award to avoid reversing the disparity.

Above all, the objective of an economic disparity award is to compensate partners who have given up their careers for the benefit of the other partner. Where that is the case, perhaps sticking to the general equal sharing regime is not so fair.

If you would like to speak to someone about your relationship property issues, please get in touch with Andrew Watkins.