Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL ORDER: K v L [2011] EWCA Civ 550

Sep 29, 2018, 18:32 PM
Slug : 2011EWCA550
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 7, 2011, 06:25 AM
Article ID : 95253

(Court of Appeal; Laws, Jacob and Wilson LJJ; 13 May 2011)

The wife was very wealthy (c £58.8m gross by date of trial; c £28.3m at date of separation) by virtue of pre-marriage inheritances. Nonetheless she lived extremely modestly throughout her 21 years of marriage. Recently the family was spending about £79,000 per annum.

Held that where the assets were entirely non-matrimonial and neither party had worked, the award to the husband of 9.3% of the assets (£5.3m) was not unacceptably discriminatory. The importance of the source of the assets may diminish over time depending on the circumstances, but here the assets had always been ring-fenced. ‘Special contribution' is a term of art which does not apply to a contribution of non-matrimonial property. The husband's appeal was dismissed. The judgment would be anonymised to protect the normality of the children's lives.

 

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