Family Law Hub

Needs

Latest updates

  • The couple married in 2016 after a long relationship, and the husband died later that year. The appeal was concerned with whether an application under s 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 could be made out of time, whether a beneficial interest under a discretionary trust instead of outright provision amounted to reasonable financial provision, and the relevance of a "stand-still agreement" in place while an out of court settlement was pursued. Asplin LJ found that the explanation for the lapse of time in this case was clear, and it had been wrong of the judge to find that the wife had received sufficient advice about the time limit and the 1975 Act. King LJ and Baker LJ agreed. The court exercised the power in s 4 of the 1975 Act to allow the wife to bring a claim out of time. Judgment, 31/07/2019, free
  • The father applied for permission to appeal orders relating to financial remedies, care of the two children and non-molestation, claiming in particular that the assessment of income had been improper, and that there had been bias and error on the part of the judge. Theis J refused permission to appeal, except with regard to a narrow but important issue regarding the child arrangements order. Judgment, 19/07/2019, free
  • The widow brought claims against the two daughters of her deceased husband. Deputy Master Linwood found that the will did not make reasonable financial provision for her, and awarded the widow her proposed nursing home charges plus an amount for pension loss, totalling £731,309. One daughter’s conduct included financial abuse, oppression via court proceedings, and attempting to mislead various parties including the court. She had flouted court orders, dissipated savings and investments, and failed to account for her activities as executor, the holder of the power of attorney and the recipient of rent. He drew adverse inferences against her and found that she should forfeit £80,000 of her share of the residue to the widow. The other daughter would forfeit £1000. Judgment, 08/07/2019, free
  • A preliminary issue hearing was held to determine the length of the marriage, the impact of the separation agreement, and whether there was any marital acquest. Cohen J concluded that the parties, a businesswoman and an artist, separated in 2004. There was no marital acquest; the wife had been dependent upon her family's wealth throughout. The agreement had been what the husband had sought. The only ground for vitiating the agreement would be if it did not meet his needs. Judgment, 27/06/2019, free
  • A wife’s claim for financial remedy orders, involving properties, companies and debts owed by the couple to the wife's father. The valuation of a company was a major issue, and there was a question as to whether a terminal value should be added. Cohen J preferred the wife's argument that it should not, and disregarded an unreliable best case scenario forecast. He declined to order a sale of shares, as desired by the wife. The husband was to pay the wife a lump sum of £8,948,930, to be reduced pro rata if his shareholding was diminished, plus £15,000 a year per child for school fees. One property would be transferred to the husband, the other to the wife. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

  • 12 questions on 3 cases summarised in the May 2018 Family Law Hub Digest CPD course, 05/06/2018, members only
  • Joe Switalski, of 29 Bedford Row, reviews the current case law and judicial thinking surrounding 'short marriages' in financial remedy proceedings. Recorded 19 March 2018. Webcast, 21/03/2018, members only
  • Alexis Campbell QC and Charlotte Trace, of 29 Bedford Row, review the key financial remedy cases and themes from the past 12 months and look at how they will affect judicial thinking and your own cases in the year to come. Webcast, 16/03/2018, members only
  • Matthew Long, from 29 Bedford Row, reviews the caselaw regarding maintenance and variation of maintenance Webcast, 28/09/2017, members only
  • Recording of webinar first broadcast on 8 February 2017 Webcast, 10/02/2017, members only

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