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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
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....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
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