Family Law Hub

Financial Provision

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

Latest training

Latest sources

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