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
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
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