Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles
Authors

Hill v Haines: 'clean break' principle intact

Sep 29, 2018, 17:25 PM
In November Newswatch reported on the case of Hill v Haines (Test case for 'clean break' settlements when former spouses become bankrupt, Nov 15). On Wednesday the judgment was handed down, in which their Lord Justices found unanimously in favour of Mrs Haines.
Slug : 06-12-2007-hill-v-haines-clean-break-principle-intact
Meta Title : Hill v Haines: 'clean break' principle intact
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 6, 2007, 06:01 AM
Article ID : 90007

In November Newswatch reported on the case of Hill v Haines (Test case for 'clean break' settlements when former spouses become bankrupt, Nov 15). On Wednesday the judgment was handed down, in which their Lord Justices found unanimously in favour of Mrs Haines.

In winning her appeal against the trustees of her bankrupt husband's creditors, Mrs Haines will now be able to keep the proceeds of the sale of their matrimonial home. In his ruling, Lord Justice Rix said it would be "unfortunate in the extreme" if a divorce settlement could be undone for up to five years because a spouse goes bankrupt. He added: "That could even encourage such bankruptcy on the part of a disaffected husband".

Rob Taylor, from Worcester-based Harrison Clark solicitors who are representing Mrs Haines said: "This verdict represents a victory for common sense. It restores the position whereby, a properly considered order of the family court, whether as a consequence of contested divorce proceedings or an agreed order properly approved by the court, awarding a spouse a financial settlement cannot subsequently be automatically undermined by the trustee in bankruptcy of the other spouse. Statutory protection for the trustee (and therefore creditors of the bankrupt) remains where it can be shown there is an element of fraud, mistake or misrepresentation. This can occur where there has been collusion between the divorcing parties to deliberately engineer a divorce settlement to put assets beyond the reach of creditors or alternatively where they have hidden assets from the family court. A fair balance is now struck between the rights of a divorcing party to obtain a clean break settlement that properly reflects their needs and entitlements and the rights of creditors not to be defrauded of monies which have been deliberately and consciously put beyond their reach".

However, the trustees have indicated that they intend to seek leave to appeal the decision to the House of Lords.

Categories :
  • News
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from