Latest articles
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...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL REMEDIES: B v S (Financial Remedy: Marital Property Regime) [2012] EWHC 265 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:29 PM
Slug : 2012EWHC265
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 16, 2012, 10:32 AM
Article ID : 98075

(Family Division; Mostyn J; 17 February 2012)

A 14-year marriage, two children aged 10 and 12. Alleged agreement between the parties that they had adopted a matrimonial property regime of separate property that was made when they married in Catalonia. Further express separation of property agreement made in another country. Neither party were aware of full implications of agreement or default matrimonial regime under which they married, disregarded in assessment of award. Summary of Catalan law led the judge to a conclusion that the court may depart from the default position where it would be unjust to implement it and likely to be so when economic imbalance exists between the parties . In considering the applicable principles relevant to capital division, it was held that the principles of sharing and need are likely to be the most applicable and compensation was restricted to exceptional cases as exemplified in McFarlane v McFarlane .

The law relating to an award of periodical payments was not so clear. Simplicity and clarity are needed in this area just as much in the field of capital division. Save in the exceptional kind of case exemplified by McFarlane, a periodical payments claim should, the judge held, be adjudged (or settled), generally speaking, by reference to the principle of need alone. The husband's company was worth £6m, equal division, £3m payable to wife in three instalments. Periodical payments of £10,000pm, falling incrementally until lump sum payment completed.

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