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
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
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...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
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