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

FINANCIAL REMEDIES: Hutchings-Whelan v Hutchings [2012] EWCA Civ 38

Sep 29, 2018, 21:29 PM
Slug : 2012EWCACiv38
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 22, 2012, 08:15 AM
Article ID : 98107

(Court of Appeal; Maurice Kay, McFarlane and Hughes LJJ; 26 January 2012)

The husband failed to make full disclosure in financial proceedings. A property had been purchased in the name of one of the adult sons and sold for £1.3m, but the judge found in reality it belonged to the husband. Proceedings were reopened and the wife was awarded a further lump sum of £384,000 in addition to the £176,000 she was originally awarded. The husband appealed on the basis that the judge had erred in failing to take into account interest paid on loans in respect of the property, costs of refurbishing two other properties and in overvaluing a bracelet the husband owned.

Appeal dismissed. The judge had not been plainly wrong, he had found a very substantial element of non-disclosure with respect to a property which had netted over £1m, he had then had to move through a sea of evidence within which there was little or no solid ground and yet fix upon one finite lump sum figure. The difficulties faced by the judge originated from the husband's own conduct, and it was impossible for him to now complain that the judge had exceeded the generous ambit of discretion open to him. 

 

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