The recent judgment in TA v SB [2025] EWFC 61 (B) offers a compelling look at how family courts balance financial settlements in cases where one spouse has significant mental health challenges. The case reinforces the principle that fairness does not always mean equality, particularly when a party's vulnerabilities affect their financial needs and earning capacity.

Case Overview: TA v SB

The central issue in TA v SB was the division of the former matrimonial home (FMH) following divorce. The wife (W), who has bipolar disorder, was awarded 57% of the FMH. The husband (H) contended for a more equal division, arguing that his contributions and needs justified a more balanced outcome.

The court ultimately found that W’s mental health condition necessitated a greater share of the asset to ensure her long-term stability. The judgment highlighted that fairness required an assessment of needs, not just a mechanical application of equal division.

The Role of Mental Health in Financial Remedies

This case underscores the court's approach to mental health in financial remedy proceedings. While White v White [2001] 1 AC 596 set the principle of non-discrimination between homemakers and breadwinners, TA v SB demonstrates that where health significantly impacts future earning potential, the court will adjust financial awards accordingly.

The Needs-Based Approach in Financial Remedy Cases

A needs-based approach is a key principle in financial remedy cases, ensuring that a financially weaker spouse, especially one with health vulnerabilities, receives sufficient provision for their future well-being. Courts will depart from an equal division where necessary to ensure financial stability, particularly when the applicant has mental health conditions or long-term medical needs.

Legal Framework for the Needs-Based Approach

While equality is often the starting point in financial settlements (White v White [2001]), courts can adjust division based on reasonable financial needs, as established in:

• Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24 – Courts can prioritise financial needs over strict equality, particularly where earning capacity is impaired.
• Charman v Charman [2007] EWCA Civ 503 – Reinforces the principle that a fair outcome must consider future financial security, not just historical contributions.

For applicants with health vulnerabilities, needs assessments take on additional significance.

What Courts Consider When Applying the Needs-Based Approach

In cases like TA v SB, where one party has mental health challenges, the court looks at:

• Housing Needs – If the applicant requires stable accommodation, the court may award a larger share of the FMH or additional capital to secure appropriate housing.
• Medical and Care Costs – Long-term medical treatment, therapy, and support services are factored into financial provision.
• Earning Capacity & Employment Prospects – If the applicant’s condition limits future earnings, the court may award higher capital or spousal maintenance (Periodical Payments).
• Overall Standard of Living – Courts aim to prevent undue financial hardship, ensuring a reasonable quality of life post-divorce.

How an Applicant Can Strengthen Their Needs-Based Claim

To maximise financial provision under the needs-based approach, an applicant should:

• Provide expert medical evidence proving the impact of their condition on their ability to work and manage daily life.
• Demonstrate specific financial needs, including medical care, therapy, and housing stability.
• Highlight dependency on the financially stronger spouse, if applicable, and justify why equal division would be insufficient.
• Argue for spousal maintenance, particularly if they are unable to work or their income is significantly reduced.

Comparison with V v V [2024] EWFC 380

The judgment in TA v SB makes reference to V v V [2024] EWFC 380, a case that, while noted as ‘non-recitable’ as precedent, shares striking similarities. In V v V, one spouse also suffered from a mental health condition that affected their financial independence. The court in that case recognised that maintaining a degree of financial security was essential for the vulnerable party’s well-being, leading to an outcome that favoured need over strict equality.

Both cases illustrate a broader trend in family law, where the court takes a holistic approach, prioritising the needs of the more vulnerable party. While V v V is not binding, it aligns with the principle that fairness in financial remedy cases is highly fact-sensitive.

Judicial Trends and Practical Implications for Family Lawyers

Courts have become more receptive to non-equal divisions where necessary, particularly in cases involving mental health or serious illness. Practitioners should:

• Emphasise long-term financial security rather than short-term asset division.
• Consider lump sum settlements where ongoing maintenance may be impractical or contested.
• Cite recent case law, including TA v SB, to justify a departure from equality based on individual circumstances.

Key Considerations for Family Law Practitioners

1. Needs trump Equality: Mental health considerations can tilt the balance in financial settlements, leading to outcomes that prioritise stability over a strict 50/50 split.
2. Judicial discretion matters: The court’s approach remains flexible, emphasising fairness over rigid formulae.
3. Precedents may be limited: While V v V was cited in TA v SB, its ‘non-recitable’ status means it cannot be relied upon as binding authority. However, it reinforces a trend in the court’s reasoning.
4. Medical evidence is critical: Demonstrating the long-term financial impact of a mental health condition strengthens a needs-based claim.
5. Spousal Maintenance may be justified: If earning capacity is compromised, a higher capital award or maintenance provision should be sought.

Conclusion

The judgment in TA v SB serves as an important reminder that financial remedy cases are not solely about division of assets but about ensuring just outcomes tailored to the parties’ realities. Where mental health factors into financial needs, the court remains willing to adjust settlements accordingly, demonstrating a nuanced and empathetic approach to family law disputes.