Family Law Hub

Marital Assets

Latest updates

  • The district judge had found that the husband was the beneficial owner of a Panamanian property, held by a company of which his mother owned all the shares. King LJ found that there had been no procedural irregularity in that finding, and it was not contaminated by an avoidance of disposition order that had also, erroneously, been made. Moylan LJ and Leggatt LJ agreed, with the latter also observing that judges should be careful, when given alternative bases for their decisions, not to introduce confusion into what would otherwise be straightforward factual findings. Judgment, 11/10/2019, free
  • The husband appealed from a financial remedy order, arguing that it contained neither a sufficient evaluation of his undisclosed financial resources nor a sufficient explanation for the award of a £1.4 million lump sum. Moylan LJ noted that the absence of a structured s 25 analysis in the judgment below, or of an exposition of how the award was calculated, had provided scope for the appeal. He did not accept, however, that a judge is required to provide a figure or bracket in every case when confronted by non-disclosure. In this case, the judge's determination of the husband's resources had been sufficient, and the award was based on a sound assessment of the wife's needs. King LJ and Rose LJ agreed and the appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 30/08/2019, free
  • An arbitration had taken place to resolve pension division, spousal maintenance, and the division of assets pertaining to shares and a redundancy. The husband felt that there had been a miscalculation of the wife's income, affecting the amount of spousal maintenance due. Ms Clare Ambrose, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dismissed the application. The arbitrator's conduct fell far short of making this a case which required court intervention. Judgment, 22/07/2019, free
  • After some delay, the husband sought a stay of a periodical payments order, arguing that the judge had fallen into error in treating his future earning capacity as a matrimonial asset which could be shared. In circumstances where there was no final version of the judgment, nor a sealed order, Francis J held that it was unfair to hold the relevant time limits against the husband. He agreed that the judge had been plainly wrong, and reduced the annual payments from £150,000 to £68,000. This hearing had been listed for only a day, causing further delay, and he stressed that there is a general duty on counsel and solicitors to inform the court if a time estimate is plainly incorrect. Judgment, 22/07/2019, 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

Latest know-how

Latest training

  • Recording of webinar broadcast on 7th February 2019 Webcast, 11/02/2019, members only
  • Mena Ruparel and Mark Penston unpick the complex task of understanding the different types of remuneration that might crop up in financial remedy proceedings. Webcast, 19/04/2018, 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
  • Nigel Shepherd from Mills & Reeve looks at the latest thinking on matrimonial v non-matrimonial assets. He also looks ahead to the possible impact of the Law Commission proposals due for release by the end of the year. Webcast, 01/10/2013, registration required

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