‘Fairness has a broad horizon’. … [90] It may be, for example, that the external contribution can immediately be seen to be sufficiently insignificant in the context of the case that it warrants no further inquiry. It may be, at the other end of the spectrum, that there is clearly no matrimonial property so that there is also no need to undertake any further factual investigation. In other words, if the facts clearly demonstrate the existence of a ‘sharp dividing line’ the court will use that line for the purposes of determining what award to make. If, on the other hand, the inquiry would require an account to be undertaken of the marriage and/or some other expensive investigation and/or would be of ‘doubtful utility’, the court could be expected to decide that such an inquiry was neither proportionate nor required to enable the court to achieve a fair outcome. If some further inquiry is warranted, the court will have to determine what ‘degree of particularity or generality’ is required. Where, in the spectrum, any particular case lies is for the court to decide. …. [92] The court may decide that the non-marital contribution is not sufficiently material or bears insufficient weight to justify a finding that any property is non-matrimonial. [93] Alternatively, if the evidence establishes a clear dividing line between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, the court will obviously apply that differentiation at the next, discretionary stage. [94] If, however, at the other end of the spectrum, there is a complicated continuum, it would be neither proportionate nor feasible to seek to determine a clear line….In those circumstances, the court will undertake a broad evidential assessment and leave the specific determination of how the parties’ wealth should be divided to the next stage. As I have said, where in the spectrum a case lies depends on the circumstances of the case and is for the judge to decide. [95] The third and final stage of the process is when the court undertakes the s 25 discretionary exercise. Even if the court has made a factual determination as to the extent of the parties’ wealth which is matrimonial property and that which is not, the court still has to fit this determination into the exercise of the discretion having regard to all the relevant factors in this case. This is not to suggest that, by application of the sharing principle, the court will share non-matrimonial property, but the court has an obligation to determine that its proposed award is a fair outcome having regard to all the relevant s 25 factors. [96] If the court has not been able to make a specific factual demarcation but has come to the conclusion that the parties’ wealth includes an element of non-matrimonial property, the court will also have to fit this determination into the s 25 discretionary exercise. The court will have to decide, adopting Wilson LJ’s formulation of the broad approach in Jones, what award of such lesser percentage than 50% makes fair allowance for the parties’ wealth in part comprising or reflecting the product of non-marital endeavour. In arriving at this determination, the court does not have to apply any particular mathematical or other specific methodology. The court has a discretion as to how to arrive at a fair division and can simply apply a broad assessment of the division which would affect ‘overall fairness’
“The parties' matrimonial home, even if this was brought into the marriage at the outset by one of the parties, usually has a central place in any marriage. So it should normally be treated as matrimonial property for this purpose. As already noted, in principle the entitlement of each party to a share of the matrimonial property is the same however long or short the marriage may have been.”
“…the court will typically conclude that the former matrimonial home should be shared equally although this is not inevitable as shown by cases such as FB v PS[2015] EWHC 297 ”