Family Law Hub

Marital Assets

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
  • 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 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
  • An appeal from the refusal of an anti-suit injunction with regard to proceedings in New Zealand, following the end of a six-year romantic relationship. Gray argued that Article 4(1) of the Judgments Regulation afforded rights to both parties, to her the right to be sued in and only in England, and to her former partner the right to sue her in and only in England. Patten LJ, Hickinbottom LJ and Peter Jackson LJ acknowledged that as a possible interpretation, but it was not one that they would wish to adopt in the present case unless required to do so. The anti-suit jurisdiction was exercised where appropriate to avoid injustice, but it was inevitably an interference with the process of the foreign court and must be exercised with caution. The appeal proceedings were stayed and the Court of Justice would be requested to give a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Judgment, 18/12/2019, free
  • The former wife's defence to claims for possession of the matrimonial home, and for weekly use and occupation payments of £5000, had referred to the terms of the financial remedy consent order, which in her view permitted her to occupy the property until it was sold. The county court judge had rejected her interpretation of the order. Fancourt J allowed her appeal, deciding that the correspondence on which the former husband had relied in the county court was not admissible as evidence of the meaning of the consent order. The county court judge erred in interpreting the order and the reasons he gave for reaching the conclusion that the appellant was a gratuitous licensee were mistaken. Judgment, 11/12/2019, free

Latest know-how

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 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

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