A family law specialist said the legal approach to civil partnership and marriage disputes were "identical".
Alison Hawes, a partner at law firm Irwin Mitchell, said a landmark ruling at the Court of Appeal on Thursday over the division of assets in a civil partnership case was "interesting" and could be read as an "appeal not to overcomplicate".
She said judges had concluded that challenges to the High Court order had been "technically correct" but had not made "much difference" to the overall position.
"The Court of Appeal today handed down what is said to be the first substantial appeal concerning financial issues between a same-sex couple following the dissolution of a civil partnership," she said.
The London court ruled in favour of city high-flier Peter Lawrence, who was unhappy that a High Court judge had awarded his former partner Don Gallagher an actor £1.7m of their £4m in joint assets. Judges ruled on Thursday that the award to Gallagher should be reduced.
But Hawes said "The fact that the claim arose from a civil partnership rather than a marriage was in fact irrelevant because the principles used are identical in both cases.
"What is interesting about the judgment is the Judge's impatience with the courts and legal advisers straining the words of the statute to try to come up with creative ways of describing relatively simple concepts...
"In terms, although Lord Justice Thorpe found that challenges to the original order might be technically correct, his view was that they made not very much difference to the overall position.
"His judgment could be read as an appeal to specialist practitioners not to overcomplicate a relatively straightforward situation where after a long relationship parties both needed affordable, comfortable housing; enough income to meet their needs and pension provision on retirement.
"In a typically succinct judgment, Lord Justice Thorpe pointed out that until and unless the law is changed to provide clarity in relation to "non matrimonial property", or how one party should meet another's need on relationship breakdown, 'we must never forget the legislated checklist'.
"It is a timely reminder to focus on the law rather than striving to be too clever."
Mr Gallagher's lawyer, James Ferguson, a family law specialist at law firm Boodle Hatfield, added: "Although the Court of Appeal made it clear that civil partnership dissolution cases should be treated in exactly the same way as divorces, it is questionable whether the outcome would have been the same if the facts had been transposed to an 11.7 year heterosexual marriage."
He said Mr Gallagher had been offered 13% of the couple's combined assets of £4.1 million - which included a "Thames-side apartment worth £2.4million and a thatched cottage in Sussex worth just under £900,000".
"Such an offer is significantly less than what a court would consider to be reasonable for either divorcing heterosexual couples or separating civil partners in these circumstances," said Mr Ferguson
"The Court of Appeal recognised this, calling Peter's initial offer as 'quite unrealistic' and 'so far from achievable as to be almost fanciful'".
He added: "Don was not asking for the valuable main London home nor did he ask for overall equality.
"All he wanted was a fair and just outcome and to retain the weekend cottage in Sussex, to which he has devoted an enormous amount of time and effort, with an additional modest sum to provide him, as an actor, with some financial security for the future.
"He has achieved much of what he asked for, but is disappointed by this decision, which effectively leaves him over £300,000 worse off."
Mr Gallagher added: "I am saddened by this case. Peter and I had spent more than 11 happy years together and achieved a great deal. It has been difficult on me and my family as I have had to borrow money to survive and to finance this court action."