Family Law Hub

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

Statute, published: 31/12/1973

Items referring to this

  • Appeal against a decision that the three children should be returned to Hungary despite the 2 older children objecting. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 11/06/2016, free
  • Wife's appeal, out of time, against a consent order made in 2010 after she realised that a trust that she believed had been set up to benefit the children in fact had the husband as the primary beneficiary. The judge ruled that there had been material non-disclosure and the wife had not delayed once the information had come to light. The order was set aside. Judgment, 27/07/2015, free
  • Husband's application for financial provision after being divorced for 24 years failed. Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
  • Ex-wife's argument that the ex-husband's claim for financial provision 24 years after their divorce should be struck out as an abuse of process was rejected. Judgment, 11/05/2018, free
  • In a tweet: Decision concerning whether a marriage was void because of H’s marriage to another woman Judgment, 11/04/2018, free
  • The court ruled that all dispositions of a £90 million Modern Art Collection and the financial assets of a limited company to two financial organisations should be set aside because they formed part of the latest scheme by the husband to hide his assets. This meant that at all material times those assets vested in the husband and continue to do so and therefore remain immediately available for the enforcement of the financial remedy order in favour of the wife. Judgment, 12/05/2017, free
  • Judgment in financial remedy proceedings in very high net worth case involving offshore trusts and international enforcement. The wife was awarded £453m, which represented 41.5% of the assets. Judgment, 11/05/2017, free
  • Judgment from Mostyn J in 'ancillary relief' proceedings involving consideration of whether a trust created for the matrimonial home was a nuptial settlement. Judgment, 20/09/2014, free
  • The issues in this financial provision case in which the husband was appealing were: 1) whether the judge had jurisdiction to make an order in respect of the children of the family; 2) whether the quantum of the periodical payments made in respect of the wife's income claims was fair in circumstances where the net effect of the judge's order left in the wife's hands the greater share of the husband's net disposable monthly income; and 3) whether the judge's departure from equality in terms of the capital division was fair in circumstances where the husband was left with a reduced share from which to meet his own future housing needs. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 14/12/2017, free
  • Application by a former husband to set aside a consent order on the basis that, at the time of the agreement, his former wife failed to make full and frank disclosure in relation to a company of which she was both a director and shareholder. It was his case that the non-disclosure upon which he relies was a material factor in that he entered into the agreement to compromise his financial claims arising in the divorce proceedings on the basis of incomplete (and, on his case, misleading) information. Cases of Sharland v Sharland and Gohil v Gohil considered. Judgment, 17/02/2016, free
  • Application made by firm of solicitors acting for the husband in financial remedy proceedings, for permission to appeal an order in which the DJ set aside a charge on the FMH to cover the husbands costs. The wife had secured 2 restrictions against the property and the DJ was satisfied that the husband had, at least as one of his purposes, executed the charge so as to defeat the wife's claim rather than use his offshore funds to pay his costs. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that the firm did not have actual notice but did have constructive notice of the intention of the husband to defeat the wife's claim. Judgment, 20/04/2015, free
  • Judgment, 13/03/2013, free
  • Judgment, 13/03/2013, free
  • Application for financial provision in a very long marriage case. Judgment, 19/10/2015, free
  • In this financial remedy case, the Claimant showed that there was sufficient evidence to show that further material should have been before the District Judge and that there was a substantial chance that such material would have led to a materially different order. In respect of his damages claim, the court ruled that the alleged consequential losses set out in the Particulars of Claim were outside the scope of the Defendants' duty and as such are irrecoverable; the damages claim would therefore need to be reformulated. Judgment, 15/05/2018, free
  • In these financial remedy proceedings, a final order, apportioning ownership of various properties in England and in the country of origin of both parties to the marriage, which was the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), had been made in the Principal Registry of the Family Division. By express words within the judge's order, neither party was entitled to make any further application in relation to their marriage in this jurisdiction "or in any other jurisdiction". Here, the wife was seeking to appeal against a range of orders, including a) an anti-suit injunction restraining the wife from commencing or carrying on any proceedings in any jurisdiction, but in particular in TRNC, either in connection with her marriage to the husband or in connection with any property owned by him; and b) a stay on any attempt to enforce payment of the outstanding lump sum. Judgment, 18/03/2014, free
  • The judge had to decide the beneficial ownership of the FMH, which was the sole asset in divorce proceedings and where the husband was subject to a confiscation order and was serving a lengthy sentence of imprisonment for a drugs related conspiracy. The Crown Prosecution Service contended that the husband was the sole legal and beneficial owner of the property and that the whole of the net value of the property was to be subsumed by the confiscation proceedings. The wife wanted the house transferred to her sole name so that she could occupy it with the three children. The judge ruled that the FMH was owned beneficially entirely by the husband and that the wife had no beneficial interest in it. Judgment, 21/11/2015, free
  • The main issue in this case was whether the 'marriage' – which lasted for 18 years and which produced 4 children and where all accepted them as husband and wife - in fact was to be treated in English law as not a marriage at all, not even one which could be declared void for failing to comply with the formalities of marriage. The judge found that it was a void marriage and the wife was thus entitled to a decree of nullity. Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
  • Judgment in financial remedy proceedings tackling the "perennial and intractable problem of the proper weight to give to valuable resources which do not belong to one of the parties to the litigation but to e.g. a parent or family trust". See also AM v SS [2014] EWHC 2887 (Fam) Judgment, 09/12/2014, free
  • Application by the wife for a Legal Services Order in the course of heavily contested financial remedy proceedings. Judgment, 16/06/2014, free
  • Husband's appeal in financial remedy proceedings, challenging the financial remedy award on the basis of an unfair division of the assets. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 22/05/2015, free
  • Decision on nature of a ceremony which took place in a Syriac Orthodox Church in Syria and whether the Petitioner was entitled to a decree of divorce, nullity or no remedy at all. A decree of nullity was made. Judgment, 06/12/2013, free
  • Financial provision case where the H was arguing against a ruling that he was in a prosperous position and therefore could afford to pay for his W's legal costs as well as his own. H complained that the judge had failed to look into the means of the W, because H said that she did have available money to obtain legal services for the purposes of the proceedings, whilst he did not. The H's application for permission to appeal was refused but the judge said 'woe betide his wife if it turns out that the basis on which she obtained this substantial order turns out to be false'. Judgment, 19/11/2013, free
  • Judgment, 25/01/2010, free
  • High value financial provision case where H and W had agreed the percentages, values and precise distribution of almost all of the major existing and future assets. Judgment, 19/06/2013, 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
  • Sharia divorce claim rejected Judgment, 22/03/2017, free
  • Application by the mother for the father to fund her legal costs in the pursuit of her Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 case. Judgment, 21/07/2016, free
  • Application for maintenance pending suit. W seeking not less that £270k pa and the H offering £202k. Moylan J settles for the latter partly because the wife's claims did not arise from need. Judgment, 11/02/2015, free
  • High value financial remedy proceedings in which the wife wanted £29m and the husband proposed just over £8m. The final award, which was based on needs, was £8.8m. Judgment, 22/03/2016, free
  • Appeal by wife against the rejection of her application to vary the terms of an undertaking, whereby she had agreed by consent to release her former husband from the FMH mortgage by either obtaining a mortgage in her own name or selling the house. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 31/07/2015, free
  • Appeal by wife on whether the court had jurisdiction to hear her application to release her from an undertaking to sell the family home. Appeal allowed on a 4 to 1 majority. Judgment, 26/07/2017, free
  • Here we have the court considering the effect of a pre-nuptial agreement on an application for maintenance pending suit, interim periodical payments for a child, and legal services provision (a s.22ZA Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 order). Judgment, 18/02/2014, free
  • Judgment, 28/01/2013, free
  • Application by husband for interim order for sale of matrimonial home, in course of financial remedy proceedings. Judgment, 02/10/2015, free
  • Appeal by wife against orders in Jamaican finance proceedings that, in brief, had seen the suspension of periodical payments replaced with a full and final settlement and also involved consideration of an equitable interest under the Married Women's Property Act. The orders were set aside and issues to be re-heard. Judgment, 29/04/2015, free
  • Appeal by 'husband' (there had been a decree absolute) against refusal to admit expert evidence on earning capacity in the financial remedy proceedings. Appeal dismissed by Moor J as the evidence requested did not meet the necessary test of importance and that such evidence should be kept to a minimum in regular financial remedy proceedings. Judgment, 21/02/2018, free
  • Judgment concerning whether the court had power to order indemnities relating to two mortgaged properties. Judgment, 28/09/2017, free
  • Judgment, 30/07/2004, free
  • Husband's appeal against various financial provision orders and against an order that he pay 100% of the wife's costs. Judgment, 21/11/2014, free
  • The husband was committed to prison for six weeks for non payment of an order for periodical payments made in divorce proceedings between the parties. He was sent to prison because he currently had, in the view of the district judge, both an earning potential and could apply for benefits but chose not to do so. The next day the husband gave notice of appeal to the High Court. He was released on bail. The essential issue that arose on this appeal was whether the reason given by the district judge was a lawful and sufficient basis for committing a maintenance debtor to prison. A person cannot be committed to prison for non-payment of a maintenance order unless the court is satisfied that the payer has, or has had, the means to pay. The district judge said that she could not be sure that the husband had currently an income, or capital, or assets and went on to say that there was "both wilful refusal and culpable neglect”. However, the High Court ruled that this was not a sufficient, justifiable or lawful basis for imprisoning anybody and the committal order was discharged. Judgment, 27/11/2013, free
  • Appeal by husband against amendment of a Mesher type order on a Barder basis after he had inherited money, following the unexpected death of his father, a month after the order had been finalised. Appeal dismissed: the order was needs based and was the only way to achieve agreement in court but the inheritance had undermined the fundamental assumptions on which the order was made. Judgment, 30/04/2015, free
  • Judgment, 26/02/2007, free
  • The Court of Appeal set aside a decision to strike out a husband’s (“H”) appeal in financial remedy proceedings on the basis that it had been wrong in principle as well as wrong on the facts of the case. The strike out decision had been based on a clear mis-construction of the facts surrounding H’s attempts to obtain a copy of the court’s transcript. Lord Justice Ryder took the opportunity to remind practitioners that the power to strike out an appeal should be used sparingly and only for compelling reasons so that the outcome of the use of the power is not unjust. Judgment, 27/03/2015, free
  • Judgment, 11/12/2012, free
  • Application by wife for a Hadkinson order preventing the husband from pursuing an appeal that is awaiting determination on the basis that he is in contempt of court for having failed to comply with orders for maintenance pending suit, costs and a legal services payment order. Application granted. Judgment, 01/10/2018, free
  • Husband was asking for an adjournment of this "extremely simple [financial remedy] case" which was refused. Mr Justice Mostyn explains his reasoning for anonymisation of financial remedy cases and ordered that the media should not identify the parties. Judgment, 16/09/2015, free
  • An ex-wife's application for a variation of a post-nuptial settlement under s24(1)(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Judgment, 16/05/2013, free
  • Case note, 01/06/2012, free
  • Judgment, 04/06/2012, free
  • Appeal against an order which: (1) gave the wife an equitable interest in two properties and that this interest was not affected by the husband's bankruptcy and was not waived or otherwise lost during the bankruptcy; (2) the wife's interest remains enforceable against the husband and the Second Appellant; (3) alternatively, that a Declaration of Trust by which the husband and the Second Appellant declared, among other things, that the husband held the properties for the benefit of the Second Appellant alone, should be set aside under section 37 of the MCA 1973. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 16/03/2017, free
  • Judgment, 17/01/2007, free
  • Hearing in the course of contested financial remedy proceedings in which the judge considered the W's applications for maintenance pending suit and a Legal Services Order. Judgment, 28/01/2014, free
  • In a tweet: Test in Re A (children) [2013] UKSC 60 was used to assess whether the parties were habitually resident in England Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
  • Judgment, 13/03/2013, free
  • Training note, 01/07/2012, members only
  • Financial remedy order where the assets were worth around £6m and the parties had already spent £1m on legal fees. In this judgment, Mr Justice Holman expresses dismay that the parties had not been able to identify a middle ground and settle without having to resort to a public court hearing. Judgment, 13/06/2015, free
  • Training note, 28/01/2013, members only
  • Model letter, 23/02/2012, members only
  • Judgment, 24/02/2012, free
  • Application for permission to appeal a financial remedy decision on the basis that the lump sum that was ordered, which was based on the valuation of an Indian property, was done so in circumstances where valuation evidence was not properly adduced. Permission was granted. Judgment, 23/10/2014, free
  • Wife was seeking a declaration that she was part owner of a property and an order for sale pursuant to the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 so that she could realise her interest. Judgment, 16/08/2017, free
  • Rehearing of a high value financial remedy case, the previous final order of 1st June 2010 having been set aside in July 2015 because of the husband's non-disclosure in respect of his interest in two trusts. Judgment, 25/11/2016, free
  • Wife believed that the husband had not provided full and frank disclosure of his financial circumstances but compromised her claims in a consent order despite this in order to achieve finality. Consent order was set aside by Moylan J because of material non-disclosure. This decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal on grounds of the inadmissibility of the evidence on which he had relied. The Supreme Court allowed the wife's appeal, saying that even if he had referred only to the evidence admissible before him, Moylan J would still properly have found the husband to have been guilty of material non-disclosure; that his order should therefore be reinstated; and that the wife’s claim for further capital provision should therefore proceed before him. Judgment, 14/10/2015, free
  • Appeal against an order transferring a pension annuity held in India to the ex-wife on the grounds that there was no jurisdiction. McFarlane concluded the judge had no jurisdiction to make that order, set it aside and remitted the case for consideration of a pension sharing application. Judgment, 29/07/2016, free
  • Pension sharing pursuant to section 24B of the MCA 1973 is not available in relation to any foreign pension, although other routes could be adopted to achieve direct sharing of a foreign pension. Judgment, 11/11/2016, free
  • Applications by the Queen's Proctor to dismiss 21 divorce applications and also, in several of the cases, to set aside decrees obtained, where the decrees had been obtained by deception. Judgment, 20/11/2017, free
  • Case note, 31/12/2009, members only
  • Guidance on Foreign marital contracts or agreements, Post marital agreements, Pre-marital agreements and Separation agreements Practice note, 08/07/2014, members only
  • Appeal by wife in which the key issue was whether the judge erred in his calculation of the lump sum award by applying a rate of return on investment of 3.75% net instead of 3.75% gross. Appeal allowed and remitted to a different High Court judge. Judgment, 04/12/2014, free
  • Application by the husband to terminate a joint lives periodical payments order in favour of the wife made originally in 2005 and later varied in 2007. The husband sought that the order be terminated without any further payment with effect from the date of his actual retirement from full time work, which was planned for 2015. The reason for the application before the actual date of retirement was due to the terminal illness of his second wife and he wanted to plan for the future. Judgment, 19/03/2014, free
  • Application by wife for maintenance under s 27 of The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Judgment, 22/10/2015, free
  • A pre-nuptial agreement was upheld after a short marriage, the judge rejecting the wife's allegation of anal rape which the wife argued would be sufficient to undermine a prenuptial agreement and cause the court to consider fairness in a different light. Judgment, 11/11/2016, free
  • Judgment, 29/01/2013, free
  • Appeal against committal orders in relation to breach of an undertaking and 2 other orders after the court found that the husband had not disclosed certain documents in this long running financial provision case. The appeals were dismissed apart from the one in relation to the breach of the undertaking. Judgment, 11/05/2018, free
  • Final orders in financial remedy proceedings where the assets were worth £40m, the wife had special medical needs as a result of a brain tumour and the German husband was absent from the final stages of these proceedings. Cobb J also considers, among other things, arguments on inherited wealth, whether the Duxbury or Ogden tables are appropriate to cater for the wife's needs and whether the husband had been served properly. Judgment, 12/12/2017, free
  • Judgment, 08/08/2012, free
  • Application by the wife of the deceased for a declaration that they were still lawfully married at the date of the deceased's death. The declaration was made. Judgment, 07/06/2017, free
  • Judgment, 04/07/2012, free
  • High Court prevents W from making public bare terms of her open financial offer to H Judgment, 19/01/2018, free
  • Hughmans, the solicitors firm acting for the respondent wife in financial provision proceedings, was claiming for unpaid fees. The wife was counterclaiming for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, wasted costs and compensation. Judgment, 01/04/2015, members only
  • A financial provision case in which the parties were of Iraqi origin. The judge had to determine a myriad of factual issues, of which the principal was the nature, extent and location of the financial resources, in circumstances where the wife alleged grave non-disclosure by the husband. The single most prominent question was whether the husband had any (and, to the extent possible, what) reckonable capital assets and income in Iraq. The wife alleged capital assets in Iraq worth several million dollars and income which annualised at a level of several hundred thousand dollars per annum, whereas the husband said that, to all intents and purposes, there were no Iraqi financial resources, whether by way of capital or income. His attention was thus trained upon the UK assets, which according to him should be shared equally between the parties because, he said, there was nothing else to be apportioned between them. As to capital assets, the husband conceded equality of apportionment in principle. Judgment, 06/05/2014, free
  • Training note, 11/06/2015, members only
  • Wife's application for permission to appeal a decision which held that a marriage was valid and therefore recognised in this jurisdiction. Permission to appeal was granted. Judgment, 22/01/2016, free
  • A case heard by the President, Munby J, who granted a reporting restriction order, contra mundum, to prevent the publication of details of a child who was subject to care proceedings. The order prevented the naming, but not publication of images, of the child, nor did it prevent the naming of the social workers involved in the case. Judgment, 06/09/2013, free
  • Financial provision case in which the parties had spent a total of £920,000 on costs where the total assets amounted to £2.9m. Judgment, 13/11/2014, free
  • Final hearing of wife's financial remedies claim where the husband had failed to disclose assets in the Cayman Islands. Judgment, 20/11/2017, free
  • In a tweet: Judgment declining jurisdiction in respect of two children habitually resident in Bosnia. In brief: Mr Justice Bodey found that the issues could and should have been raised before the Bosnian court, where it was accepted that the children were habitually resident. The idea that jurisdiction could be established for dealing with a one-off urgent situation (in this case the mother’s application to relocate to Serbia in two days’ time) was undesirable – “one does not dip in and out of jurisdiction”. Judgment, 31/10/2016, free
  • This article, by Nicola Rowlings, PSL at Mills & Reeve, reviews the recent decision in Joy v Joy-Morancho and Others (No. 3) [2015] EWHC 2507 (Fam). Given the desirability of finality in litigation, the case is a rare example of the Family Court adjourning a party's capital claims, as well as confirming the approach to the nuptialisation of trusts Article, 02/10/2015, free
  • Further judgment in long running financial remedy proceedings primarily concerning whether H's claims that he could not access assets from a trust were "genuine or a contrived facade". Also includes lengthy consideration of the costs arising. Judgment, 28/08/2015, free
  • Appeal by wife against decision to set aside a financial remedy order on the grounds that by giving judgment prior to the granting of decree nisi the judge had made an made an order in breach of s23 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which prohibits the making of an order in financial remedy proceedings prior to decree nisi. Appeal allowed and costs order made against the husband. Judgment, 10/04/2014, free
  • Judgment in financial remedy proceedings in a six year marriage and where the wife earned considerably more than the husband in which the judge had to consider pre-acquired assets and whether to apply the sharing principle. Judgment, 06/11/2015, free
  • In a tweet: Unsuccessful appeal against a leave to remove order. In brief: The father (“F”) sought to appeal a leave to remove order in proceedings where the mother (“M”) had been able to establish that he had acted in an angry, violent or otherwise inappropriate manner towards the child. The trial judge’s approach could not be criticised. It had been welfare-based, full weight had been given to the impact of the move on the child’s relationship with F and F’s proposals had not been ignored. Judgment, 05/10/2016, free
  • A certificate of entitlement to a decree of nullity was granted to the wife, meaning that she was permitted to pursue a claim for financial remedy. The court rejected the husband's argument that there was nothing capable of recognition as a marriage. Judgment, 27/02/2017, free
  • A pre-nup agreement was signed by the wife against the advice of her solicitors. The court ruled that the pre-nup and the issues of fairness and needs should be taken into account when deciding on the size of the award in favour of the wife. Judgment, 20/04/2018, free
  • Further judgment in long running Inheritance Act proceedings confirming that the claimant was eligible under the terms of section 1(1A) of the 1975 Act Judgment, 19/06/2014, free
  • Case note, 28/05/2012, free
  • Judgment, 05/02/2013, free
  • Application by the W for the continuation of an ex parte freezing order made against the H, where the W had obtained documentation relating to the H's assets illegitimately. Application declined. Mostyn J appended to the judgment standard examples of freezing and search orders which were considered by the President and authorised to be promulgated for general use (these example orders are also listed under Precedents). Judgment, 26/06/2013, free
  • Judgment, 21/03/2007, free
  • Financial remedy hearing where the husband, a LiP, failed to disclose his assets and whose McKenzie Friend was excluded from the court after several interruptions, an outburst and threatened complaints against the judge, the solicitor for the wife and criminal sanctions against the wife. Judgment, 21/09/2017, free
  • Application for permission to appeal an order made by Mr Justice Coleridge in financial remedy proceedings where he ruled that the Chinese Tigers South Africa Trust was not a post nuptial settlement. The judge gave permission to appeal, despite legal costs already amounting to over £2m - he urged the parties to settle before it came back for the appeal hearing. Judgment, 11/01/2016, free
  • The father was ordered to pay the mother's costs of contested Schedule 1 Children Act proceedings that resulted in an order against the father following a claim being brought by the mother on the child's behalf. Judgment, 04/11/2016, free
  • High value financial provision case where the wife sought orders which would enable her to receive all the properties in this jurisdiction together with a lump sum equivalent to half the value of the Russian properties whose sole beneficial owner was the H. The total assets, or at least those that could be ascertained against the non-disclosure of the H, were worth over £107m and all the properties, apart from the FMH, were held within various company structures and worth in excess of £14m. The judge held that all the UK properties were held on resulting and constructive trusts for the H and the W was awarded over £53m. Child maintenance orders of £20,000 pa per child were also made. Judgment, 15/08/2013, free
  • Judgment, 31/07/2012, free
  • Judgment in financial remedy proceedings involving consideration of jurisdiction under Part III of the MFPA 1984. Mr Justice Moor found that he had jurisdiction and W was awarded shares in properties totalling c£8m. Judgment, 19/04/2015, free
  • Case note, 17/12/2008, members only
  • Appeals by H against two orders directing he pay monies W and which raise points concerning making of such orders where a previous order for periodical payments has been discharged but a consequent lump sum order is the subject of enforcement. Judgment, 19/12/2014, free
  • In these long running financial proceedings, the parties had agreed to attempt mediation, and the wife undertook not to make any further statutory demand prior to the conclusion of the mediation. The wife maintained that it was an implied term of the agreement that the husband would pay the rent on a substitute property, and he had breached this implied term. She subsequently issued an application for general enforcement under FPR 2010 rule 33.3(2)(b) for a sum of nearly £2m. The husband argued that the wife was debarred from proceeding to enforce by virtue of the agreement to mediate. The judge ruled that the agreement could not be given effect so as to prevent the wife from applying for enforcement until and unless mediation has taken place. A bar of that nature would operate as a restriction on the right to apply to the court. The most that could be done in balancing the obligation to mediate under the agreement and the right of access to justice was for an adjournment to be ordered for a specified period to give the parties a final opportunity to engage in ADR and an adjournment was made for 8 weeks. Judgment, 05/03/2014, free
  • Application by the husband for a stay of divorce proceedings started by the wife in England where he wanted the proceedings to be held in Switzerland. The application was granted. Judgment, 09/07/2018, free
  • Judgment in financial remedy proceedings involving a long marriage where the husband and wife (and subsequent children) had worked together building a successful company over 40 years but from which the wife was dismissed in 2014. Moor J considers many issues including whether the wife should receive a dividend, tax treatment of a director's loan account and what happens if the wife proceeded with a claim in the employment tribunal. Judgment, 11/03/2015, free
  • Application to appeal a consent order primarily on the grounds that the wife did not have capacity to give consent at the time of the agreement. Application allowed. Judgment, 27/08/2014, free
  • Wife's appeal in a financial provision case against a clean break decision as she argued that the judge had failed to take into account that she might struggle to obtain full-time work and also that the judge should have found that there was a significant risk that she might be without work for substantial periods of time. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 21/03/2014, free
  • Judgment, 17/03/2008, free
  • Judgment, 18/06/2009, free
  • Case note, 05/12/2012, free
  • Judgment, 02/11/2012, free
  • Appeal by wife against an order, which said that the parties had divorced in France in 2015 and therefore the Decree Nisi and Decree Absolute granted in the UK in 2016 were null and void, on the basis that she did not have proper notice of the French divorce. The appeal was dismissed and the UK Decree Nisi and Decree Absolute were set aside. Judgment, 12/03/2018, free
  • Husband's appeal against the refusal of his application to vary a periodical payments order and against the capitalisation of the order. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 06/04/2017, free
  • Wife's application for a judgment summons against the husband in respect of £2,200 of arrears of child periodical payments and £5,500 in respect of an unpaid costs order. A suspended sentence was imposed. Judgment, 06/05/2016, free
  • Judgment, 02/12/2009, free
  • Wife's appeal against a stay of proceedings brought by her in England on the ground that India was the more appropriate forum to hear the proceedings (forum non conveniens). Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 20/10/2013, free
  • Application for a declaration of marriage where the applicant claimed a customary marriage had taken place in Nigeria, contrary to the view of the first respondent, and pursuit of financial provision including claims concerning a property in London. Judgment, 24/04/2013, free
  • Judgment, 28/11/2006, free
  • Appeal by husband against a suspended committal order, variation order and order for costs. The committal order was set aside due to procedural errors, the costs order falling with it, but the appeal against the variation order failed. Judgment, 11/08/2016, free
  • A long running case in which the 'W' claimed that she and the 'H' had been married in Nigeria and that she could pursue financial relief proceedings in England. The 'W' had brought proceedings by way of various petitions: the 2003 petition, the 2003 amended petition, the 2004 petition and the 2004 amended petition. The Nigerian court found that no marriage ceremony had taken place and so the issues for the court to decide were: 1) The Respondent's application to dismiss and/or strike out the 2003 Amended Petition; 2) The Respondent's application to set aside an order granting permission for the Petitioner to bring proceedings under the 1984 Act and/or for an order dismissing or striking out those proceedings; 3) The Petitioner's application for orders, directions and interim payments in her application under the 1984 Act; 4) The Respondent's application to dismiss and/or strike out the 2004 Amended Petition; 5) The Petitioner's application for orders, directions and interim payments in her application made by the 2004 Amended Petition; 6) The Respondent's application for repayment of the sums he has paid by way of maintenance pending suit in the 2003 Petition and in the proceedings under the 1984 Act. Judgment, 15/10/2013, free
  • Judgment, 27/03/2013, free
  • Consideration of whether periodical payments for the wife should 'step-down' in the near future in circumstances where other issues concerning division of capital had been agreed. Judgment, 09/07/2014, free
  • Wife's appeal against the setting aside of an order for periodical payments after the judge held that he did not have the power to make wholesale variation and changes to his original order. Appeal allowed. Judgment, 14/04/2016, free
  • Judgment, 28/03/2014, free
  • Judgment, 24/11/2006, free
  • Wife's appeal against the dismissal of her application to set aside a consent order in financial remedy proceedings which was made in 2005. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 06/03/2017, free
  • An anonymity order dated 30 June 2011 had been imposed following financial provision proceedings. The wife applied for the anonymity order to be extended or, alternatively, for the imposition of a fresh anonymity order to cover recent financial provision proceedings. The court held that in the particular circumstances of this case, such balancing exercise, if any, as the court was required to conduct, clearly came down in favour of the press and other media. A decision which refused to impose reporting or anonymity restrictions was a proportionate response to such entitlement as the wife may have to privacy under article 8. The application was therefore refused. Judgment, 08/02/2017, free
  • Judgment, 25/07/2007, free
  • Model letter, 18/04/2012, members only
  • Training note, 20/09/2012, members only
  • Appeal against a refusal to grant a wife a decree nisi of divorce on the basis that the wife had failed to prove, within the meaning of section 1(2)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, that her husband had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him, even though the judge had found as a fact that the marriage had broken down. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 24/03/2017, free
  • A statutory charge was not and could not be applicable to the applicant's award of damages in a HRA claim. Judgment, 14/11/2016, free
  • Judgment, 22/10/2012, free
  • Case note, 29/10/2012, free
  • Appeal by trustees of a settlement that was varied by order of Mostyn J following divorce proceedings. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 07/05/2015, free
  • Judgment, 28/07/2003, free
  • Judgment, 28/10/2012, free
  • Husband's application to appeal a non-molestation order against him and an occupation order in respect of the parties' matrimonial home. Application dismissed. Judgment, 05/12/2016, free
  • Judgment, 22/03/2013, free
  • Appeal against setting aside of order transferring properties to the wife that were legally owned by the former husband's companies. Appeal allowed. Judgment, 12/06/2013, free
  • Judgment, 30/01/2011, free
  • Judgment from the President concerning the representation for LiP's and possible infringement of their article 6 and 8 rights if such representation is not publicly funded. The President said that 'there may be circumstances in which the court can properly direct that the cost of certain activities should be borne by HMCTS. I emphasise that (the provision of interpreters and translators apart) this is an order of last resort. No order of this sort should be made except by or having first consulted a High Court Judge or a Designated Family Judge.' Judgment, 06/08/2014, free
  • The husband's appeal against the discharge of the Court of Appeal's reporting restriction order was dismissed. Judgment, 18/10/2017, free
  • An injunction which restrained the husband from directly or indirectly engaging in any business that competed with the family company was to remain in force. The judge said that if it did not compete (which the H alleged) then there was nothing in the injunction which in any way fettered the operation of that company. If it did compete, then it was right that there should be an injunction because by operating a competing business he would be in breach of his fiduciary duties as a shadow director of the family business. Judgment, 14/01/2014, free
  • Judgment, 26/08/2012, free
  • Husband was seeking declarations that a divorce granted in Dubai is entitled to recognition in England and Wales. The court refused to make the declarations sought. Judgment, 20/11/2017, free
  • Financial provision case which has been running for 16 years. The case was decided against the W and she appealed, arguing that the delay and the judge's reliance on counsel's submissions had led the judge into error. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 05/08/2013, free
  • Judgment from The President concerning validity of 180 divorce petitions fraudulently obtained for non-domiciled Italian couples through the use of a single UK PO box address. The divorce petitions were set aside. Judgment, 01/10/2014, free
  • Judgment, 21/11/2011, free
  • Trustee in bankruptcy was seeking to renew his application for permission to appeal against an order striking out his claim for a lump sum or a property adjustment order under ss.23 and 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Cross-appeal to set aside an order in so far as it gave the Trustee permission to appeal against the decision striking out his claim that the payments were transactions at an undervalue pursuant to s.339 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Judgment, 28/11/2016, 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 decision refusing to set aside a Consent Order made in financial remedy proceedings following the dissolution of the appellant's civil partnership with her partner who has since died. The basis of the application to set aside the consent order (which was made after the death of the respondent) was that the deceased had been guilty of material non-disclosure in the financial remedy proceedings. The judge dismissed the appellant's application, which he regarded as being "without merit", and "doomed to failure", saying that allowing the case to proceed would be contrary to the court's overriding objective and his (the judge's) duty actively to case manage an application. The appeal was allowed and the case was remitted for directions before a High Court judge. Judgment, 17/10/2016, free
  • Appeal by husband against variation of periodical payments order where he was seeking a clean break instead. Appeal dismissed as the circuit judge's decision was not wrong. Judgment, 04/05/2017, free
  • An application by the husband for an order granting permission to appeal the order of a Deputy District Judge whereby he stayed the wife's divorce proceedings but excepted from that stay her application for a Legal Services Payment Order. Mr Justice Mostyn gave permission for the appeal and allowed it, saying that by the terms of FPR 2010 rule 9.7(1) an application for an LSPO is for an interim order, just as is an application for an order for maintenance pending suit. Such an application is dependent for its existence and validity on the continuance of the main suit. If the main suit is stayed then all subsidiary ancillary applications for financial relief are stayed, and a fortiori all applications and orders for interim relief, whether for maintenance pending suit or an LSPO. Judgment, 10/03/2014, free
  • Application for declaratory relief pursuant to s 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 where the applicant claimed that she was the sole beneficial owner of 2 of the 4 properties the couple owned and that she had an 82% interest in another of the properties. Judgment, 18/03/2016, free
  • A big money case involving a wife's application for an order that the financial remedy hearing that had concluded last year be resumed on the grounds of material non-disclosure by the husband. Judgment, 02/05/2013, free
  • A financial provision case where the husband was Dutch and the wife English. The wife disputed a pre-marital agreement that had been made in Holland but the judge ruled that that she knew exactly what she was signing up to. Judgment, 24/02/2014, free
  • The husband's trustee in bankruptcy claimed that 2 charges against the FMH were a sham and that a Trust Deed and Consent Order should be set aside as constituting a transaction defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 or a transaction at an undervalue for the purposes of section 339 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Judgment, 22/03/2016, free
  • Challenge against the determination that the FMH was in joint names of the W and H and not owned by the company, and against an order that the W be paid a lump sum in anticipation of the FMH being sold. Application adjourned. Judgment, 22/04/2013, free
  • Judgment, 22/11/2012, free
  • Consent order drawn up, after which the wife discovered that the value of the shares in question were far in excess of the figure prepared for the hearing. Court of Appeal dismissed the wife's appeal against a refusal by the judge to set aside the order. Wife's appeal allowed after the Supreme Court held that the High Court judge would not have made the order he did, when he did, in the absence of husband's fraud, and the consent order should have been set aside. He had also been wrong to deprive the wife of a full and fair hearing of her claims by re-making his decision at the hearing of the application on the basis of the evidence then before him. Judgment, 14/10/2015, free
  • Judgment in high net worth financial remedy proceedings involving valuation of the husband's business and its effect on the outcome. Judgment, 15/08/2014, free
  • Application to appeal a costs order made against the H in financial provision proceedings where his s37 MCA application had been struck out because s37 was not the appropriate vehicle to set aside the disposition relating to a property. Application refused. Judgment, 02/09/2013, free
  • Appeal concerning correct route for alteration of substantive capital adjustment orders. Judgment, 26/03/2018, free
  • Judgment, 25/04/2007, free
  • Wife was applying to have the husband's application to vary the terms of a maintenance order, which included maintenance to be paid after her re-marriage, struck out on the basis that it was an abuse of process. The application was refused. Judgment, 06/05/2016, free
  • Judgment, 14/02/2013, free
  • Application by the ex wife for financial remedy 20 years after a maintenance agreement was made but never concluded by an order of the court Judgment, 15/04/2013, free
  • Judgment, 12/04/2013, free
  • Applicant husband's application for permission to appeal in respect of 3 orders made in relation to the enforcement of a financial remedy order made in 2012. Judgment, 26/05/2016, free
  • Application by adult beneficiaries of certain trusts to be joined as parties to financial remedy proceedings. Judgment, 28/05/2013, free
  • During the course of contested financial remedy proceedings adult beneficiaries of a number of offshore discretionary trusts were joined as parties on their application. Subsequently, an order was made that these beneficiaries, as parties, should disclose copies of documents which had been provided to them for the purposes of an application which had been made to the Royal Court of Jersey by the trustee of some of those trusts. The Royal Court had given the beneficiaries permission to make such disclosure, if they were ordered to do so by this court, but, in doing so, the Royal Court expressed a number of concerns and invited this court not to require such disclosure. The financial remedy proceedings have been resolved by a consent order but Mr Justice Moylan had been requested by the parties to give a judgment dealing with his order for disclosure. In the judgment he also explained his decision to order disclosure given the terms of the Royal Court's judgment. Judgment, 24/11/2013, free
  • Contested financial remedy proceedings involving adult beneficiaries of a number of offshore discretionary trusts. Case note, 13/01/2014, free
  • Judgment, 05/02/2013, free
  • Application by the husband, who the wife alleged was a billionaire, to make the decree nisi absolute. The application was dismissed on the basis that the wife had established the special circumstances that were sufficient to override the otherwise strong presumption in favour of ending the marriage - in this case there were substantial assets held in complicated offshore structures and the situation was one where it could be very significant if the petitioner in financial remedy proceedings was a wife or a former wife. Judgment, 21/10/2016, free
  • Judgment, 06/06/2012, free
  • Judgment in financial remedy proceedings involving inter-company debts, assets and businesses in Belgium and France and an order for costs against the husband of £456k Judgment, 03/12/2014, free
  • The court ruled that even though the wife had served the divorce petition on the husband 4 months and one day after issue, the UK court was the court first seised. Judgment, 22/10/2016, free
  • The wife's divorce petition was issued in England in October 2015. An attempt to serve the petition on the husband was made in February 2016 in Germany where he was living at the time, but this failed because of insufficient address details being given by the wife. In the meantime, the husband had commenced divorce proceedings in Germany in January 2016. The husband was appealing against a ruling that the English court was first seised on the grounds that the wife had failed to take the required steps to serve the petition. The appeal was dismissed, the court saying that Rule 7.8 FPR simply requires the petitioner to serve the petition. No particular step is stipulated as having to take place "immediately" or by a certain date. Judgment, 16/07/2018, free
  • The Claimants brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 against the executors of the estate of their late father that their father, who had remarried since divorcing their mother, intended that following his death his estate should take over responsibility for making payments to them until they were 18 or had completed tertiary education as set out in an order made in 2007 . Judgment, 14/05/2018, free
  • Application by former husband for a declaration that a consent order drawn up in 2012 provided for the sale of a Swiss property only if he defaulted on monthly payments to his ex-wife and not if he failed to pay the lump sum. The application was refused. Judgment, 18/05/2016, free
  • Reminder that applications for freezing orders must be made to the Family Court at district judge level, unless the criteria in the Efficiency Statement justify it being heard at High Court judge level. The criteria in this case were not met, because, in effect, the applicant had already frozen the property by the imposition of his home rights charge. Judgment, 01/08/2017, free
  • Applications to commit the husband and his new wife to prison for breaching orders made within financial remedy proceedings. Judgment, 20/05/2016, free
  • Appeal by father against orders that were made under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989. Judgment, 27/10/2015, free
  • The court held that the wife was domiciled in the UK and that the financial remedy proceedings should proceed in the English court. Judgment, 10/03/2017, free
  • A relatively high value financial provision case where the parties had already spent more than £1m in legal fees. The judge reached a decision on distribution which "represent[ed] a fair outcome bearing in mind (i) the existence of non-matrimonial property; (ii) reattribution issues; (iii) the nature of the assets which each will retain at conclusion of proceedings and (iv) sharing." Judgment, 21/08/2014, free
  • An acrimonious financial remedy case in which the liquid assets were worth around £4m but the cost of litigation so far amounted to £1m. The husband was English, the wife Russian and much of the case revolved around the husband's blatant lies about income which he had concealed in a Jersey bank account, and the wife's disposal of a property at an undervalue and other monies which she had spent or dissipated unreasonably. Judgment, 20/03/2014, free
  • High value financial remedy appeal where the main focus was the judge's finding that he was unable to determine the value or future liquidity of the major business asset and his decision to make a so called Wells order. The court also addressed the impact of a pre-marital agreement, non-matrimonial assets and the sharing principle. Lord Justice Lewison, in the third judgment, makes some interesting points in relation to the difficulties in valuing private companies. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 11/05/2018, free
  • Appeal against an order requiring the husband to pay the wife £2,500 per month by way of interim periodical payments until further order and to pay directly to her solicitors, £3,000 per month by way of a legal fees allowance order. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 18/05/2018, free
  • Ex-husband's appeal against the dismissal of his application to strike out his ex-wife's claim for financial remedy, 19 years after they were divorced, and the granting of her application for an A v A order to finance the claim. Judgment, 08/05/2013, free
  • This case is also known as Kim v Morris [2012] EWHC 1103 (Fam) Judgment, 27/07/2012, free
  • Judgment in long-standing dispute where the wife is attempting to enforce undertakings after her Part III application, issued as a result of alleged breach of the undertakings, had failed when the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no jurisdiction. Judgment, 03/12/2013, free
  • Case note, 11/02/2013, free
  • Judgment, 28/01/2013, free
  • Judgment, 05/02/2013, free
  • The court ruled that an earning capacity was not capable of being a matrimonial asset to which the sharing principle applies. Also, the court rejected the argument that the wife's capital, apart from her housing need, should be preserved and should not be used in any way to meet her income needs. Judgment, 13/04/2018, free
  • Appeal against orders in financial remedy proceedings where the wife argued, among other things, that the district judge should not have ordered a clean break. Moor J made some adjustments to the orders but declined to overturn the clean break. Judgment, 10/11/2015, free
  • The question here was whether or not there had been a substantive determination of the application by the wife for permission to appeal an order ordering possession of the FMH. The judge remitted this issue to the Family Division for consideration before determining other outstanding permission applications. Judgment, 29/03/2016, free
  • Judgment, 26/10/2000, free
  • Husband's application for permission to appeal against an order which rejected his claim that he had made a special contribution, earned and amassed by acumen and drive, and that this "special contribution" was "unmatched" by contributions which the wife had made to the welfare of the family. Permission to appeal was granted. Judgment, 05/04/2016, free
  • Appeal by husband in financial remedy proceedings against decision that the matrimonial assets should be shared equally on the grounds that he had made a special contribution. Appeal dismissed as the trial judge could not be found to be wrong. Judgment, 13/04/2017, free
  • Financial remedy case where the main question for determination was the calculation of a lump sum payable by the wife to the husband to offset the difference in their pension provision. Judgment, 27/01/2016, free
  • Parties had reached agreement that the wife be paid a lump sum of £300,000. The issue here was whether the details of the settlement could be made public and whether the husband should pay the wife's costs relating to a Dean summons which was brought by her solicitors but then abandoned after the husband relented on the publicity issue. Judgment, 11/06/2016, free
  • Judgment, 18/09/2012, free
  • Application for a reporting restriction order on the previous financial remedy proceedings. A reporting restriction order was made preventing the publication of any information relating to the proceedings save for the judgment. Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
  • In a tweet: Unequal sharing thanks to special contribution Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
  • Judgment, 18/10/2012, free
  • Judgment in long running financial remedy proceedings where the husband claimed he was now penniless. The judge found that his assets were £40m and awarded the wife half of that sum as that amount also matched her reasonable needs. Judgment, 22/11/2013, free
  • Judgment, 08/11/2012, free
  • Hearing to deal with quantum and/or the nature of the financial relief to which the wife should be entitled after it was determined appropriate for the English court to make an order for financial provision for her under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. Judgment, 14/07/2016, free
  • Application for financial relief after an overseas divorce brought by a former wife under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. Both parties were Russian nationals and it was the respondent's case that the Russian financial remedy order made in 2009 precluded any further claims the wife may have in relation to either spousal maintenance or a variation of any trust or post-nuptial settlement pursuant to section 24(1)(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Mrs Justice Roberts decided that a Part III order would be appropriate, determination of which would be made at a later date. Judgment, 25/04/2016, free
  • 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
  • Judgment, 29/01/2013, free

Published: 31/12/1973

Copyright 

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.

Disclaimer

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