Courts have a wide discretion when considering the financial provisions that are appropriate when a marriage breaks down.

Each case is decided on its particular set of facts, but some general principles have emerged. Not surprisingly, the length of the marriage is considered by the Court to be an important factor.

Usually, the award to a dependent spouse in the case of a short marriage, is very different than in a long marriage, provided all other relevant factors are the same.

Where a dependent spouse in a long marriage has done everything reasonably required of a spouse but has made little or no direct financial contribution to the marriage, the spouse is still entitled to a share of the family assets on the basis of their contribution to the welfare of the family.

Likewise, dependent spouses are usually entitled to some form of ongoing financial support until they remarry. In particularly long marriages, that entitlement may last a lifetime.

Awards to a dependent spouse are normally smaller in cases where the marriage has been relatively short (usually less than five to seven years).

Where the dependent spouse is relatively young, and able to earn an income, he or she is usually only entitled to sufficient financial provision to enable them to get back on their feet.

Normally, any support payments will only last for a period of time roughly equivalent to the length of the marriage.

Often the Courts will not order support payments at all, to ensure there is a `clean break' of financial ties between the parties.

The age and health of the parties is an important factor for the Court to consider.

If one spouse has lost the substantial prospect of a comfortable old age as a result of the marriage breakdown, the award of the Court should reflect this.

Likewise, where one spouse is physically or mentally ill, any award made by the Court will reflect the fact that the ill spouse's needs are greater than those of a healthy spouse.

People often assume that they are entitled to be maintained at the same standard of living enjoyed by them during the marriage.

Unfortunately, this often does not occur, since the available assets and income are often insufficient to support two households at the same standard of living.

Perhaps surprisingly, the dependent spouse of an extremely wealthy spouse usually suffers the greatest fall in their standard of living.

These `big money' cases typically involve husbands who are enormously wealthy and wives who are significantly less wealthy.

In assessing the wife's entitlement the Court will look at her reasonable needs rather than allocating to her a precise percentage of her husband's wealth.

The Court will seek to justify the inclusion of anything beyond a suitable home and money for basicexpenses (basicfor the lifestyle of the parties during the marriage that is).

Generally speaking, when it comes to the big moneycases, it does not matter much if the husband is worth $20 million or $400 million, the wife is awarded much the same.

In all the cases mentioned above, where the dependent spouse (usually the wife) makes contributions over and above the more common contributions to the welfare of the family, they are usually entitled to a larger award.

Active participation in the other spouse's business (in cash or in kind) is one example.

Another example is where the dependent spouse enabled the other spouse to succeed in business by accepting a frugal standard of living, or where the dependent spouse's independent, early career success gave the other spouse's business a kick start.

Where the parties have entered into a pre-nuptial agreement, the agreement may be taken into account by the Court, but will not be binding. The Court may disregard the agreement if it is not just and fair.

Keep in mind that there is a much better chance of the Court giving weight to the agreement if it has been arrived at fairly and if both parties received independent legal advice at the time it was made.

Of course, there is more to the story than I have discussed today. No two cases are ever exactly alike and what is fair in one situation is totally unfair in another.

The possibilities for financial provision are endless, but this article (and my last one) should provide you with a starting point for understanding how our courts deal with applications for financial provision.

Nita Grewal is a litigation attorney and a member of the Appleby Spurling & Kempe Family Law Team. You can write to her with your questions or comments at Familylaw yASK.BM. Copies of Ms Grewal's columns can be obtained on the Appleby Spurling & Kempe website at www.ask.bm.

This column should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice.

Before proceeding with any matters discussed here, persons are advised to consult with a lawyer.