In OO v QQ [2025] EWFC 310 (B), His Honour Judge Hyde faced one of the most delicate balancing acts in family law: how to achieve fairness when one party is terminally ill. The case is a poignant reminder that behind every financial remedy judgment lies a human story — and that the court’s wide discretion under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 allows justice to be shaped by compassion as well as calculation.
The Background
The parties were married for almost 20 years. Both were in their mid-50s, with total assets just under £1 million. Tragically, the wife had been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Her prognosis was poor, and medical evidence suggested she had limited time remaining.
The husband argued that the court should recognise this by limiting her award, since her financial “needs” would be short-lived. The wife, however, sought security and dignity — not only for her remaining life but also to ensure her affairs were settled with stability and her adult children were not left with uncertainty.
The Court’s Approach
Under section 25, the court must consider all the circumstances of the case, including each party’s needs, resources, age, and health. Health is often relevant in assessing earning capacity or ongoing expenditure — but where a party faces terminal illness, it becomes central.
HHJ Hyde accepted that the wife’s needs were immediate and pressing. She required a secure home, funds for care, and the ability to live her remaining time free from financial anxiety. The judge also noted that the husband, in good health and with ongoing earning capacity, was better placed to recover financially.
Accordingly, the court divided the assets 56% to the wife and 44% to the husband — a departure from equality justified by her exceptional health circumstances and the need to ensure her welfare and peace of mind.
Balancing Fairness and Humanity
This judgment demonstrates that “needs” are not purely mathematical. They must be understood in context. A party with a limited life expectancy has needs that are immediate, intensive, and deserving of priority.
HHJ Hyde’s decision reflects the broader principle that fairness in family law is not confined to equal division. It also encompasses empathy and recognition of personal circumstances. As the court observed, the aim is not to achieve actuarial precision but a just and humane outcome.
Why OO v QQ Matters
OO v QQ reinforces several key principles:
- The court’s discretion under section 25 is wide enough to reflect human realities.
- Health and life expectancy can justify a significant departure from equality.
- “Needs” in family law extend beyond duration — they include intensity, security, and dignity.
Ultimately, this case captures the compassionate side of family justice. It shows that even in cases governed by figures and percentages, the court’s true task remains to do what is fair — especially when time is short.
