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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF/ NON-MATRIMONIAL ASSETS: Jones v Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 41

Sep 29, 2018, 18:03 PM
Slug : 2011EWCA41
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 3, 2011, 07:10 AM
Article ID : 93709

(Court of Appeal; Wall P, Arden and Wilson LJJ; 28 January 2011)

The parties separated in 2006 after a 10 year marriage. A company founded by the husband before the marriage was valued at £2 million just before marriage. During the ancillary relief proceedings, the company was sold for £32m, of which the husband received £25m. The wife appealed the decision of Charles J in J v J [2009] EWHC 2654 (Fam). The judge had awarded the wife £5.4m on a clean break basis, of which £400,000 was in respect of her costs. The wife sought, as she had at first instance, £10m.

Held it was not appropriate to capitalise earning capacity as at the date of the marriage and treat it as a capital asset - the judge's approach was wrong (GW v RW overturned). It was however appropriate to incorporate the spring-board effect and passive economic growth into the value of a company at the date of marriage. The court should first divide the assets into matrimonial and non-matrimonial, but often a precise division is unlikely to be required. The sharing principle should then be applied and the overall percentage division considered as a cross check.

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