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 ORDERS: R v R [2011] EWHC 3093 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 19:21 PM
Slug : 2011EWHC3093
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 11, 2012, 12:30 PM
Article ID : 97641

(Family Division; Coleridge J; 5 April 2011)

The couple was married for seven years and had one child. Their total assets amounted to £4 million, almost all of which had been brought into the marriage by the husband. The husband had considerable earned income. Use of White v White etc authorities not helpful in a case in which barely enough to cover needs. The case was driven mostly by needs. In such cases, counsel should not waste time in preliminary theoretical discussions, but move swiftly to look at practicalities of suggested outcomes. Disclosure: Husbands needed to understand that advisors of wives could not provide proper advice without full confidence in Form E numbers. However, the wife's injunction to prevent disposal of a numberplate had gone too far. Court would discourage pursuit of add-back approach to legal costs, which inevitably led to quasi-taxation or assessment of costs during hearing but without court having all material available to a costs judge - also led to debates about costs which new rules designed to try to reduce or prevent.

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