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...
FINANCIAL REMEDIES: Chapman v Jaume  EWCA Civ 476
Sep 29, 2018, 21:31 PM
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article :
Prioritise In Trending Articles :
May 2, 2012, 10:32 AM
Article ID :98727
(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Etherton, Lewison; 29 March 2012)
Upon the woman's divorce the matrimonial property transferred into her sole name by which time she had started a new relationship and the man was mostly living with her. The man lent the woman over £130,000 to carry out refurbishment. When the couple split up the man claimed £162,589.42 constituting the money he lent plus interest. The woman claimed the money had not been lent and had been given in lieu of her contribution to the running costs of the household. Judge found because the man had failed to set out the terms of the loan, particularly when it was to be repaid the claim should fail entirely.
Appeal allowed and issues of quantum remitted to county court judge. The judge should have drawn the inference that the money was repayable a reasonable time after demand, in this case, at the very latest after the house was sold.