Can unpaid domestic labour be part of a divorce settlement?
In Beijing, a woman was compensated in a divorce settlement for unpaid domestic labour. What's the situation in England and Wales? Learn more.
In Bridget Christie's comedy-drama The Change (2023), our hero Linda has spent the last 25 years secretly recording every second of invisible domestic labour she's completed. Her husband and children are unaware that each day she'll record how long it took her to empty the dishwasher or wipe down the windowsill.
In an
interview promoting the series, Christie said: "I want there to be a household chore revolution! […] If we cannot sort out the distribution of household chores equally and fairly, how are we going to sort out the more complicated stuff?"
Meanwhile, an analysis from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) claims that "women carry out an overall average of 60% more unpaid work than men". The only chore that men do more than women is driving themselves and others around.
Could this unpaid labour play a part in a divorce settlement? It's a question that's been answered in different ways since the big divorce reforms of the 1960s.
In 2021, the issue hit the news when a Beijing divorce court ordered a man to pay his wife ¥50,000 (around £5,460) as compensation for unpaid labour.
The wife, identified as Wang, argued that "Chen had not shouldered any housework or childcare responsibilities for their son" – and Beijing's Fangshan District Court ruled in her favour.
The judge argued that "housework constitutes intangible property value". It's an asset like joint property, and so should be split in the event of a divorce. The ruling was criticised for under-compensating her, with one user of the Chinese micro-blogging platform Weibo pointing out that a nanny in Beijing would cost more than ¥50,000 a year.
But how about in England and Wales? To tell that story, we need to go back to 1973.
Wachtel v Wachtel (1973)
At the end of the 1960s, Labour introduced big reforms to the divorce laws. In the following years, courts often applied the new laws inconsistently. Clarity was needed – and Lord Denning's judgment in
Wachtel v Wachtel
(1973) provided just that.
At the time, it was a landmark case. It concerned a husband's appeal against the court's financial order following his divorce.
Lord Denning argued that the "guilty party" – the person taking the blame for the
marriage's breakdown – shouldn't be punished in the financial settlement. This ruling was one paving stone on the road to today's no-fault divorces.
One thing his ruling took into account was the issue of unpaid domestic labour. He said that "the wife who looks after the home and family contributes as much to the family assets as the wife who goes out to work. The one contributes in kind, the other in money or money's worth."
This landmark ruling was reaffirmed in White v White (2000), which refused to distinguish between the contributions of the "breadwinner" and the "homemaker": "There should be no bias in favour of the money-earner and against the home-maker and the child-carer."
This was a watershed moment in
British divorce law, ending the tendency for men to retain most of the family finances after divorce.
The effects of these cases are felt today. In 2023, a financial order will consider the contributions each spouse has made and is likely to make in the future. This encompasses household work and childcare, not just "breadwinning".
Fast forward to 2020…
In 2020, there was another landmark
case – this time, a judgment by the Court of Appeal. It overturned what lawyers described as the "grossly unfair" division of marital assets and struck a blow for gender equality in divorce.
The situation was this: the wife was the sole carer for the couple's child, who had a severe disability. In the financial settlement after their divorce, she received just 29% of the couple's combined wealth. The justification for this was that her husband had made a "special contribution" to the marriage in the form of his successful business.
But in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Moylan overturned the ruling, saying:
"In this case, the wife's enormous contribution to the welfare and happiness of the family, as the homemaker and principal carer of AB, both during and after the marriage, has been and will be incalculable.
"She has devoted herself to the day-to-day care of a child with special needs and by doing so has freed the husband to a very considerable extent to enable him to pursue the business activities which have generated the enormous wealth now available."
Debbie Chism, who represented the wife and fought to overturn the original verdict, said:
"The judgment has ensured that financial contributions – earning the income – are not prioritised over domestic contributions – taking care of children and looking after family members.
"Given we are in a society where men are more likely to be in bread-winning roles, women would have missed out in cases where capital is generated by a man’s efforts."
The short version
What this all means is that in England and Wales, a judge won't distinguish between homemaking and breadwinning as contributions to a couple's domestic life. A spouse's unpaid domestic labour will form part of a settlement, so there's no need for compensation payments to be made, as in the Beijing case.
Nevertheless, it's important for people going through a divorce to receive quality legal guidance so that their financial contributions and needs are reflected in the divorce settlement.
Good-quality legal advice is invaluable for equipping you with the facts at a stressful time – not to mention fighting your corner when conflicts arise. So if you find yourself going through a divorce, make sure to instruct early and to instruct well.
Are you going through a divorce? Do you need legal advice relating to spousal maintenance and support? At Milners Law, we have teams of expert
divorce lawyers in Leeds, Pontefract and Harrogate. They're committed to providing fair, frank guidance to help you get the outcome to deserve.
Get in touch to arrange a free, no-obligation consultation.
![Judgment has been handed down this week in Transwaste Recycling and Aggregates Ltd [2024] EWHC 330 (](https://lirp.cdn-website.com/8f80b851/dms3rep/multi/opt/o+and+s-1920w.JPG)
Authorised and regulated by the SRA, SRA ID 52317