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
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL REMEDIES: B v B

Sep 29, 2018, 21:29 PM
Slug : BvB16012012
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 29, 2012, 11:43 AM
Article ID : 97971

(Family Division; David Salter, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court; 16 January 2012)

The wife was 40, the husband was 61 and the marriage had lasted 15 years. The husband was a successful businessman working in commercial property with pre-marital wealth assessed at £823,362. The wife was unemployed, had no qualifications, only an income of £5,000 maintenance pending suit but wished to start her own business. The husband's pension was  £12,000 pa plus income from various businesses consisting of salary, dividends and benefits in kind. The wife assessed income needs at £6,395 pm and wished to return to the matrimonial home where the husband had been living since separation. The husband's assessment of his own needs at £1,655 pm, high standard of living during the marriage, wife made a full and significant contribution to the running of the husband's businesses. The £820,000 of pre-marital wealth excluded, a residual sum was sufficient to meet the wife's needs and do justice to the sharing principle. The husband was to remain in matrimonial home, the wife was awarded £600,000 to fund accommodation, £50,000 for a car, £50,000 for future unexpected expenditure, taking into account high standard of living, plus £1,349 to clear overdraft. The wife's income needs of £4,500, £853 net earning capacity, Duxbury fund of £1.04m. The husband was unable to prove the wife's cohabitation with a new partner to the extent that it would impact on the award. On needs and sharing principle, outcome the same, wife awarded 40.45% of total assets.

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