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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF: Livock v Livock [2011] EWHC 3040 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 19:16 PM
Slug : 2011EWHC3040
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 9, 2011, 13:33 PM
Article ID : 97501

(Family Division; Coleridge J; 29 November 2011) 

 The wife was awarded £600,000 following divorce. The husband applied for leave to appeal. The husband had long running outstanding tax liability dispute with Inland Revenue. The judge had found not immediate liabilities so not significant overall to scale of case.  Prior to the Court of Appeal hearing, the husband filed evidence to suggest tax liabilities more current than previously thought and HMRC becoming more active in their pursuit.  The Court of Appeal found evidence of some significance and directed a rehearing in light of the new evidence.

Little had changed in parties circumstances. Formal assessments of husband's tax liabilities had been issued but merely part of HMRC machinery to prevent claims being time-barred. It was likely that the dispute will continue for a number of years.  No immediate liabilities impacting on the wife's award.

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