Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF: N v F [2011] EWHC 586 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:15 PM
Slug : 2011EWHC586
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 5, 2011, 06:15 AM
Article ID : 94713

(Family Division; Mostyn J; 11 March 2011)

Following a 16 year marriage with two children, the couple's total assets were worth about £9.7m. The husband had brought about £2.1m into the marriage. Having worked as a high earning banker, the husband had left the financial industry in 2007 and was happily employed as a school master earning about £36,000 a year. The drop in income meant the family had been living off capital.

The husband offered the wife £4.17m - 43% of the assets. The wife sought half on the basis of her needs. She had put her needs at in excess of the family assets. She claimed that the husband's non-matrimonial property had been converted into and mixed with matrimonial property and that the husband had alienated certain sums during the marriage. She criticised the husband for not taking up other work in the financial sector.

The treatment of non-matrimonial property is highly fact specific and very discretionary.  The two-step approach is generally correct, subject always to needs. Here £1m of the husband's premarital wealth would be excluded from the sharing principle giving the wife 44.7% of the overall assets. She would have received a lower percentage but for her needs.

 

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