Family Law Hub

Matrimonial Home

Latest updates

  • 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
  • The former husband applied to set aside part of a consent order relating to maintenance payments. The former wife cross-appealed for enforcement of maintenance arrears. The husband claimed that the consent order had been fraudulently changed without his knowledge, and that his wife had sent emails in his name to the firm involved in drafting the consent order. In emails to her the husband had expressed his belief that the maintenance changes were a mere "paperwork exercise" to enable her to get a new mortgage. Moor J found that the expert handwriting evidence as to the signature on the consent order was of no assistance, but he was satisfied that the wife had perpetrated a fraud on the husband, and that she had sent fraudulent emails on his behalf. The relevant paragraph of the order was set aside, and replaced with a clean break order. The wife owed the husband £248,930 from the sale of the matrimonial home, to be paid within 28 days. Judgment, 11/12/2019, free
  • The wife had applied for an occupation order for a property. The husband had claimed that the marriage certificate was a forgery. The judge found that there was a marriage and the husband was a serial liar. The husband now sought permission to appeal the findings and the consequent orders, and an extension of time to do so. Williams J allowed the appeal, on the basis that the hearing was procedurally irregular and the outcome consequently unjust. The matter was remitted to the Family Court. Judgment, 25/06/2019, free
  • A wife’s claim for financial remedy orders, involving properties, companies and debts owed by the couple to the wife's father. The valuation of a company was a major issue, and there was a question as to whether a terminal value should be added. Cohen J preferred the wife's argument that it should not, and disregarded an unreliable best case scenario forecast. He declined to order a sale of shares, as desired by the wife. The husband was to pay the wife a lump sum of £8,948,930, to be reduced pro rata if his shareholding was diminished, plus £15,000 a year per child for school fees. One property would be transferred to the husband, the other to the wife. Judgment, 14/06/2019, 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

Latest know-how

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