Family Law Hub

Financial Provision

Latest updates

  • Webinar to be broadcast live on Wednesday 1st April 2020. News, 03/02/2020, members only
  • The Court of Appeal recently gave judgment in XW v XH [2019] EWCA Civ 2262, an appeal by the wife (‘W’) against the financial remedy order made by Mr Justice Baker (as he then was) on 21 December 2017 (see XW v XH [2017] EWFC 76). He had ordered that W should receive capital resources which, when added to her own assets, would give her approximately £152m – a significant sum, but equal to only 29% of the parties’ combined capital resources of £530m. Judgment, 03/02/2020, free
  • 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
  • An assessment of whether the husband had an outstanding needs claim which the wife should meet. The husband had no realistic prospect of meaningful employment. Cohen J held it would be proper to provide an award of £325,000 to meet the husband's needs for an income and a further £10,000 for a car replacement. However, the case had been conducted by the husband in a manner that Cohen J found to be irresponsible and unreasonable. The wife did not seek her costs from the husband, and Cohen J saw no reason why she should pay the husband's unreasonably incurred costs. Inclusive of costs of £150,000, the husband would receive a total award of £485,000. Judgment, 27/01/2020, free
  • The former wife sought a Hadkinson order barring the husband from proceeding with an appeal in Family Law Act proceedings unless he made good the default in his payments of child maintenance. Cohen J noted that this might be the first time the Hadkinson principle was extended to cover proceedings which were related but not identical. However, the remedy could be extended to this situation, and the husband's appeal in the related matter would be struck out unless he paid the maintenance due. Judgment, 27/01/2020, 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