- Cited — Rattan v Kuwad (Rev 1) 2021-01-11
“…], this equates to “fairness”, consistently with the overarching objective in financial remedy cases, which is that the outcome should be “fair”: White v White [2001] 1 AC 596, Lord Nicholls at p. 599G/H.…”
- Cited — XW v XH 2019-12-18
“…sband’s case as being that the shares in the Company “should be regarded as a species of non-matrimonial property”, at [154]. He then quoted from White v White [2001] 1 AC 596 (“White”); Miller; Charman v Charman (No 4) [2007] 1 FLR 1246…”
- Cited — Versteegh v Versteegh 2018-05-10
“…White v White [2001] 1 AC 596.…”
- Cited — Waggott v Waggott 2018-04-11
“…uture income. Any other outcome would not be fair because it would be discriminatory in the same way that cases determined before the decision of White v White [2001] 1 AC 596 were identified in that case as having been decided on discriminatory grounds.…”
- Cited — Waggott v Waggott 2018-04-11
“… over-arching, principle is that the court must exercise its discretionary powers in manner which is not discriminatory. As Lord Nicholls said in White v White [2001] 1 AC 596, 605B/C:…”