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 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