Latest updates
- The court was concerned with: first, the complex calculation and capitalisation of future income streams, which represented the realisation of assets built up during the marriage; and second, the question of whether this would be sufficient to meet future income needs. Judgment, 17/01/2020, free
- Mr Justice Moor recently gave judgment in Neil v Neil [2019] EWHC 3330 (Fam), concerning the applicant husband’s (‘H’) application to set aside part of a final order in financial remedies proceedings on the grounds of the respondent wife’s (‘W’) alleged fraud. In an extensive judgment, Moor J made numerous serious findings of fact against W, concluding ultimately that ‘Her conduct has been egregious. The court cannot and will not ignore it… This is one of those very rare cases where I must take into account W’s conduct. I am clear that, if I allowed her to proceed with a claim for maintenance, I would be allowing her to benefit from her fraud. Whilst I accept that this was a long marriage with a child, W’s conduct, in my view, is the magnetic factor that, in effect, trumps everything else.” Moor J ordered a set aside of part of the final order, disposed of the case finally, and ordered W to pay H’s indemnity costs. Judgment, 10/01/2020, free
- Claims for financial remedies after divorce. Everything that the parties now possessed had been built up during the course of the marriage, including a successful mobile telephone business. The litigation had been highly destructive and the husband had been largely responsible for that situation. The only way that Cohen J could be confident that the wife and children would be properly provided for was for the beneficial interest in the business to be transferred to the wife. Properties in London and Miami were divided between them. Judgment, 23/12/2019, free
- The husband had been ordered to pay the former wife a lump sum of £20m in full and final settlement of her claims. Eleven years later, not a penny had been paid. A without notice order had been made appointing receivers of shares in a Spanish company, of which the husband had been found to be the beneficial owner. This receivership order was set aside following an application by other parties, and the wife now appealed against the set-aside order. Baker LJ decided that the judge had been wrong to set it aside on the mere assertion by the other parties that they were the owners of relevant shares. A third party could not expect to receive the protection of the court if it wasn't prepared for the rights it claimed to be scrutinised. Arguments on limitation, jurisdiction and estoppel also failed. Moylan LJ and Longmore LJ agreed, and the receivership order was restored, the latter adding that the application to set aside the receivership order had been misconceived from the start. Judgment, 23/12/2019, 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
Latest know-how
- In a tweet: No need to vent your spleen in a witness statement. Case note, 02/11/2019, members only
- Both parties applied to the court, asking the court to approve their respective draft letter of instruction to the expert. Case note, 18/10/2019, members only
- In a tweet: Disclosure of husband's confidential documents ordered from copies held by wife's lawyers. Case note, 18/10/2019, members only
- In a tweet: Consideration of “substantial” in leave for Part II MFPA 1984 proceedings. Case note, 18/10/2019, members only
- The husband unsuccessfully appealed an order to transfer the legal title in 42 properties into his sole name (and release the wife from the associated mortgages). Case note, 16/10/2019, members only
Latest training
- Recording of talk given by Richard Todd QC at the At A Glance Conference, October 2019. Webcast, 03/01/2020, free
- Recording of talk given by HHJ Edward Hess at the At A Glance Conference, October 2019. Webcast, 09/12/2019, members only
- Recording of webinar first broadcast on 29th October 2019. Webcast, 30/10/2019, members only
- Recording of webinar first broadcast on 3rd October 2019. Webcast, 03/10/2019, members only
- Recording of webinar first broadcast on 1st October 2019. Webcast, 01/10/2019, members only
Latest sources
- In force 8th August 2018 Practice direction, 27/07/2018, free
- Form (external), 05/04/2017, free
- New form released by HHJ O’Dwyer, head of the Financial Remedies Unit at CFC, for complex financial remedy cases. Click the link on the right hand side to download it. Form, 25/06/2015, free
- Tool, 22/04/2012, members only
- Tool, 16/04/2012, members only