Family Law Hub

Contribution

Latest updates

  • A judgment dealing with the wife’s application for financial relief following a divorce. The husband started a plant hire business shortly after their relationship began. HHJ Booth's decision was that all properties in their joint names should be transferred to the husband, other than a house occupied by the wife's mother. The husband would continue to provide support for the wife until he paid her, three months hence, £2.3 million. She would then be paid £1m more after 15 months and another £1m after 27 months. The pension would be shared equally. The husband's suggestion (after circulation of the draft judgment) that this might lead to liquidation of the business did not change HHJ Booth's decision: he had presented his case as if there were no possibility of the wife receiving more than he was prepared to offer, "a bold strategy that failed". He would have to bear the consequences of running his case this way. Judgment, 28/01/2020, free
  • The wife appealed from a financial remedy order that she should receive £152m, 29% of the parties' combined capital resources, which included a significant sum acquired by the husband after selling shares in a company founded before the marriage. The wife sought a total of £235m. Moylan LJ decided it would be fair to both parties to treat 60% of the wealth derived from the shares as matrimonial property and 40% of it as non-matrimonial. The wife would now have approximately £182m, 34.5% of the parties' combined wealth. King LJ and Underhill LJ agreed. Judgment, 20/12/2019, free
  • The husband brought an appeal regarding the matrimonial home, which had been bought entirely with money inherited by the wife, arguing that the judge's approach had been unfair in some respects. McFarlane LJ found that there was a sound basis to some of the criticisms. The appeal was allowed, and the case remitted to the family court for rehearing. McFarlane LJ underlined the need for the wife to be represented by competent legal representation if at all possible, calling it a case which ought to justify exceptional funding by the Legal Aid Agency. Macur LJ and Henderson LJ agreed. Judgment, 28/05/2019, free
  • In a tweet: Unequal sharing thanks to special contribution Judgment, 06/08/2018, 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

Latest know-how

Latest training

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