This HTML5 document contains 52 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n11https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
goldhttp://purl.org/linguistics/gold/
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Miller_v_Miller
rdf:type
dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase
rdfs:label
Miller v Miller
rdfs:comment
Miller v Miller 2006 (House of Lords) is a divorce (property settlement) case between Alan Miller and Melissa Miller. He is an asset manager in the City of London who had a fortune of some £30m (per The Times - which says 17.5m in property plus 18.5 in shares). Melissa was entitled to £5 million of her former husband's assets after just two years and nine months of marriage, no children, the Law Lords ruled.Five Law Lords agreed that the benchmark for division should be equal shares - save in certain circumstances - no matter how short the marriage. They said that to achieve fairness at the end of a marriage, the courts should look to three main considerations: financial needs, compensation, and equal sharing.
dbp:name
Miller v Miller
dcterms:subject
dbc:2006_in_British_law dbc:House_of_Lords_cases dbc:Divorce_law_in_the_United_Kingdom dbc:English_family_case_law dbc:2006_in_case_law
dbo:wikiPageID
5277133
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1082952898
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbc:House_of_Lords_cases dbr:The_Times dbr:Donald_Nicholls,_Baron_Nicholls_of_Birkenhead dbc:2006_in_British_law dbr:Divorce dbr:City_of_London dbr:Marriage dbc:Divorce_law_in_the_United_Kingdom dbr:House_of_Lords dbr:Leonard_Hoffmann,_Baron_Hoffmann dbr:Matrimonial_Causes_Act_1973 dbr:Matrimonial_Proceedings_and_Property_Act_1970 dbr:Asset dbc:English_family_case_law dbr:David_Hope,_Baron_Hope_of_Craighead dbr:Property_settlement dbr:Brenda_Hale,_Baroness_Hale_of_Richmond dbc:2006_in_case_law dbr:Pensions_Act_1995 dbr:Family_Law_Act_1996 dbr:Jonathan_Mance,_Baron_Mance
owl:sameAs
n11:f4tG freebase:m.0dc4yp wikidata:Q16933849
dbp:subsequentActions
None
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Use_dmy_dates dbt:Reflist dbt:English_case_infobox
dbp:citations
[2006] UKHL 24
dbp:court
House of Lords
dbp:fullName
Alan Miller and Melissa Miller
dbp:judges
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffman, Lord Hope of Craigshead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, and Lord Mance
dbp:keywords
Divorce; Financial provision; Matrimonial property
dbo:abstract
Miller v Miller 2006 (House of Lords) is a divorce (property settlement) case between Alan Miller and Melissa Miller. He is an asset manager in the City of London who had a fortune of some £30m (per The Times - which says 17.5m in property plus 18.5 in shares). Melissa was entitled to £5 million of her former husband's assets after just two years and nine months of marriage, no children, the Law Lords ruled.Five Law Lords agreed that the benchmark for division should be equal shares - save in certain circumstances - no matter how short the marriage. They said that to achieve fairness at the end of a marriage, the courts should look to three main considerations: financial needs, compensation, and equal sharing. McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] was a conjoined appeal. This case similarly dealt with a high earning husband, but it concerned a long term marriage. At issue was the wife's periodic payments as compensation for the disparity in earning capacity that existed at the end of the marriage. The wife was awarded 250,000 p.a. for 5 years and potentially for life. There were children in that case.
dbp:casesCited
White v White [2001] 1 A.C. 596, SRJ v DWJ [1999] 2 FLR 176, R v R [1992] 1 AC 599, Foster v Foster [2003] EWCA Civ 565; [2003] 2 FLR 299, Leslie v Leslie [1911] P 203, Cornick v Cornick [2001] 2 FLR 1240, Minton v Minton [1979] AC 593
dbp:dateDecided
2006-05-24
dbp:legislationCited
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Family Law Act 1985, Matrimonial Causes Act 1866, Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Family Law Act 1996, Divorce Act 1976, Divorce Jurisdiction, Court Fees and Legal Aid Act 1983, Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, Family Law Act 2006, Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, Pensions Act 1995
gold:hypernym
dbr:Case
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Miller_v_Miller?oldid=1082952898&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
2967
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Miller_v_Miller