Family Law Hub

Barder v Caluori [1988] AC 20

Sorry, we cannot find this resource on the web

Judgment, published: 02/04/1988


Items referring to this

  • Appeal against a ruling that the wife should be discharged from her undertaking. The appeal was allowed but the judge said that in fairness to the husband, replacement undertakings should be put in place. Judgment, 01/03/2018, free
  • W was seeking to set aside a transaction, where H had transferred £1.75M to his son before their divorce, so as to bring the sum back into the estate. She wished to have the s423 Insolvency Act 1986 route available to her as well as the statutory route under s10 of the Inheritance Provision for Family and Dependants Act 1975. The judge declined to dismiss her s423 application and the question of costs was adjourned. Judgment, 09/01/2014, free
  • Application by the H for permission to appeal decisions which (i) refused H's application for permission to appeal out of time against an ancillary relief order dated 26 May 2006; and (ii) refused H's application to set aside that order on grounds of material non-disclosure. Application refused. Judgment, 08/08/2013, free
  • Applications arising from order requiring the father to pay a lump sum to the mother, under Schedule 1 CA 1989 Judgment, 04/08/2017, free
  • Judgment, 29/01/2013, free
  • Case note, 12/03/2009, members only
  • Contested financial provision case where the H was appealing on a vast number of diverse grounds, including the judge's treatment of the pre-nuptial agreement. Judgment, 15/01/2014, free
  • Judgment, 28/03/2014, free
  • The court held that a potential Inheritance Act claim by a surviving husband against his deceased wife's estate abates on the death of the husband. Thus the daughter of the deceased husband could not bring a claim under the Act after he had also died. However, the court allowed an amendment to the claim, the claimant relying on section 2(1)(f) of the 1975 Act which says that the Court has the power to vary "any ante-nuptial or post-nuptial settlement (including such a settlement made by will) made on the parties to a marriage to which the deceased was one of the parties, the variation being for the benefit of the surviving party to that marriage, or any child of that marriage, or any person who was treated by the deceased as a child of the family in relation to that marriage." Here the claimant would have to show that she was "treated by the deceased as a child of the family in relation to that marriage." Judgment, 21/02/2017, free
  • Appeal against a financial provision order on Barder grounds where the husband had committed suicide shortly after the award was approved and where the wife, who was extremely wealthy, was seeking to overturn the award of £19m. Appeal allowed and an award of £5m was made. Judgment, 28/07/2015, free
  • Judgment, 18/06/2007, members only
  • The terms of a foreign consent order having been implemented, the wife made an application under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 seeking substantial additional provision for herself several years later (there having been no change in her circumstances). The judge ordered the appellant husband to pay to the wife a lump sum of £1,148,480 together with provision for the children of the marriage. The husband appealed against this order, it being unusual for an order to be made under Part III where a foreign order is in place. The court ruled that it was not appropriate to make an order under Part III in this case. Judgment, 05/10/2017, free

Published: 02/04/1988


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item