Family Law Hub

Marital Assets

Latest updates

  • A freezing order on a property was due to be reconsidered. It had been made in favour of Mrs Chaudhri following default in the payment of a lump sum. Mostyn J found that the applicant had twice failed to pursue her claim in relation to the property, and it would be a manifest abuse were a claim now to be allowed to be mounted and protected by a freezing injunction. The freezing order on the property was discharged, but the worldwide freezing order made earlier would remain in force and be transferred to the Family Court. Any further applications for freezing relief should be made to the same Family Court and heard only at High Court judge level. Judgment, 31/05/2019, free
  • The husband brought an appeal regarding the matrimonial home, which had been bought entirely with money inherited by the wife, arguing that the judge's approach had been unfair in some respects. McFarlane LJ found that there was a sound basis to some of the criticisms. The appeal was allowed, and the case remitted to the family court for rehearing. McFarlane LJ underlined the need for the wife to be represented by competent legal representation if at all possible, calling it a case which ought to justify exceptional funding by the Legal Aid Agency. Macur LJ and Henderson LJ agreed. Judgment, 28/05/2019, free
  • The applicant, a convicted sex offender, applied for an order that a letter of request be issued to the American authorities for the respondent to be examined and required to produce documents relating to supposed assets. The claim being highly speculative, and given the applicant's conduct, Mostyn J concluded that it would be disproportionate and unlawful to grant the application. Judgment, 20/05/2019, free
  • The wife resided in Tenerife and Russia, the husband in London. Following divorce proceedings in Russia, the wife applied for leave to apply for financial relief in England and Wales, pursuant to section 13 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. Williams J held that her claim could not be characterised as wholly unmeritorious, and leave was granted. Judgment, 29/04/2019, free
  • The husband and wife had owned 127 properties, which were to be divided between them. The husband appealed against an order that 42 properties be put on sale unless he transferred them into his sole name and released the wife from her obligations under those mortgages. In Cohen J's judgment, the judge was plainly right to find that the husband had not used his best endeavours to obtain the wife's release from the mortgages, and the appeal was rejected. Judgment, 26/04/2019, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

  • Recording of webinar broadcast on 7th February 2019 Webcast, 11/02/2019, members only
  • 12 questions on 3 cases summarised in the May 2018 Family Law Hub Digest CPD course, 05/06/2018, 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

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