EQUAL sharing in divorces is not the rule - despite a precedent set in a recent multi-million pound settlement, a North-East legal expert has said.

Last month, businessman John Charman's wife, Beverley, was awarded £48m of assets worth £131m in a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The 36.5 per cent cut is thought to be the highest award made by a court in contested proceedings.

It was conceded that Mr Charman made the major contribution in generating the family fortune.

Her husband unsuccessfully contested whether funds in a £68m trust - designated for the couple's children - should be taken into consideration.

Wayne Lynn, associate with Newcastle-based law firm Dickinson Dees, said there had been an emerging principle of sharing assets after divorce.

It has meant property should be shared in equal proportions unless there are good reasons to stray from that rule.

"Had credit not been given for the husband's exceptional contribution in generating the family's huge wealth, it is possible that the court may well have ordered the assets to be shared equally," he said.

However, in each case, the court must take into account other factors, including the parties' financial circumstances, needs, obligations and responsibilities. Their ages, length of marriage and whether the assets are "matrimonial" or "non-matrimonial" are also considered. Mr Lynn, whose employer oversaw a record £7bn-worth of deals last year, said: "For most divorcing couples, the court will look to satisfying their needs, as well as whether it is necessary to compensate one party for any financial disadvantage.

"For example, if one of them gives up their career to raise children.

"This often means that assets are not divided 50/50.

"It is only in big money cases, where there is more than enough to satisfy the couple's needs, that the sharing principle is likely to apply."