Judgment, published: 24/05/2006
Topics
Items referring to this
- 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
- 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
- Appeal against part of an order providing for an automatic increase in the level of periodical payments payable to the wife following the date upon which the youngest child ceased privately funded secondary education. Appeal allowed and that part of the order was set aside. Judgment, 04/02/2016, free
- Application for financial provision in a very long marriage case. Judgment, 19/10/2015, free
- In brief: Finding that the pot of liquid assets totalled £14.9million, that the pot of Russian business assets totalled £5.7million and that the husband (“H”) had not wilfully dissipated assets nor hidden assets, Mr Justice Moor awarded the wife (“W”) £9.6million with the husband (“H”) retaining £12.9million. Wells-sharing of the Russian business assets was considered to be entirely inappropriate, and H keeping the business assets would allow him to be provided with an income and a return of his capital in the long term. His housing needs were also met plus he had monies to clear his significant debts (£2.8million). W took all the non-Russian liquid assets plus received an indemnity in relation to French tax liabilities and £20,000 a year in child maintenance and a school fees/education costs order. Judgment, 22/10/2018, 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
- Judgment, 25/01/2010, free
- Case note, 17/02/2012, members only
- 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 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
- Judgment, 28/01/2013, free
- Case note, 12/07/2007, members only
- Judgment, 24/05/2007, free
- High value financial remedy case where the costs so far amount to £2.7million and the court had to determine the extent, if any, of non-disclosure by both the husband and wife. Judgment, 17/05/2017, free
- Judgment, 19/06/2007, free
- Judgment, 26/02/2007, free
- Judgment, 13/03/2013, free
- Application for financial remedies made by the Wife where the quantum of the assets were between £18.2 and £19.7 million. However, there was virtually nothing at all in the name of the Wife despite the fact that she was an equal partner in the family business. The only dispute was as to whether she was an equal partner with just the Husband or with his father as well. In any event, the business was sold for some £17.6 million as recently as 2012 and subject to the outcome of this case, her efforts had, in terms of capital, availed her not a penny. Judgment, 19/10/2015, free
- Husband's appeal against an order which awarded the wife over £4m on the grounds that the judge went beyond an assessment of the wife's needs when making his award, in effect augmenting it by reference to other unspecified factors. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 15/05/2017, free
- In a tweet: Mostyn J's observations on the concept of needs Case note, 12/06/2017, members only
- Judgment, 10/11/2006, free
- Judgment, 24/02/2012, free
- Judgment, 01/10/2009, free
- Judgment, 31/12/2009, free
- Judgment, 14/05/2010, free
- 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
- In a tweet: Ding ding round 2. Coleridge breathes life into compensation after Mostyn's knock down last month Case note, 28/04/2014, 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, 23/07/2009, free
- Judgment, 23/06/2008, free
- Judgment, 28/02/2012, free
- Case note, 21/01/2010, members only
- Judgment, 21/01/2009, 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
- A case in which the only asset which fell fairly outside the matrimonial bracket to any extent was H's shareholding in Z Ltd. Mr Nicholas Cusworth QC determined that W's share of the current value of H's shares should be expressed as 20% of the whole, on the basis that 60% of the value of H's holding represented post-separation accrual, and the remaining 40% was a matrimonial asset to be shared equally. Judgment, 03/07/2015, free
- Judgment, 28/01/2011, 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
- Application for financial relief under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 where the judge had to consider needs in a context of an extremely opulent lifestyle. Judgment, 08/07/2016, free
- Case note, 13/05/2010, members only
- Judgment, 13/05/2010, 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
- Judgment, 19/01/2012, free
- Judgment, 21/03/2007, 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
- 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
- Wife's appeal in a financial provision case against a clean break decision Case note, 03/06/2014, members only
- Judgment, 17/03/2008, free
- Judgment, 18/06/2009, free
- Judgment, 11/03/2011, free
- Judgment, 19/12/2006, free
- Judgment, 24/11/2006, 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
- 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, 26/08/2012, free
- Judgment, 20/10/2010, free
- Judgment, 27/10/2010, free
- Judgment, 26/06/2006, free
- Judgment concerning treatement of a lottery win in financial remedy proceedings. Judgment, 14/10/2011, free
- Judgment, 22/09/2006, free
- Judgment, 19/03/2008, 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
- 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. Case note, 11/03/2014, 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
- Judgment, 29/07/2010, free
- Judgment, 29/01/2008, 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 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
- 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
- In a tweet: Family Court sets aside financial orders made 20 years after parties' separation Case note, 10/10/2016, members only
- Judgment, 18/06/2007, members only
- 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
- In a tweet: No development in the guidance on special contribution cases Case note, 10/05/2017, members only
- In a tweet: Unequal sharing thanks to special contribution Case note, 06/08/2018, members only
- In a tweet: Unequal sharing thanks to special contribution Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
- Judgment, 18/10/2012, free
Published: 24/05/2006
Share