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...
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...
Jones v Jones: Springboards, Non-Matrimonial Property, Castles and Companies
Sep 29, 2018, 18:29 PM
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article :
Prioritise In Trending Articles :
Apr 1, 2011, 12:21 PM
Article ID :95145
Solicitor, Withers LLP
In his article ‘A Judicial Safari tour of Ancillary Relief: J v J' published in October  Fam Law 1111, Ashley Murray set himself the task of digesting and summarising Mr Justice Charles's judgment in the case of J v J  EWHC 2654 (Fam),  1 FLR (forthcoming). What he described as the challenge of a lifetime was also the task that faced the Court of Appeal when they heard the case in November last year. Lord Justice Wilson's criticism of Charles J's judgment was less restrained than Mr Murray's when he described it as ‘far too long, too discursive and too unwieldy'. In characteristic voice, Wilson LJ went on to say that he refused to accept that modern principles of ancillary relief were as complex as the judgment given by Charles J would seem to imply.
The decision in Jones v Jones is an important one as far as the treatment of pre-marital or inherited assets is concerned. This article will discuss the decision of the Court of Appeal and examine the principles that can be extracted from it.
To read the rest of this article, see April  Family Law journal.
To log on to Family Law Online or to request a free trial click here