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

Jones v Jones: Springboards, Non-Matrimonial Property, Castles and Companies

Sep 29, 2018, 18:29 PM
Slug : KatharineLandells-AprilFLJ2011
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 1, 2011, 12:21 PM
Article ID : 95145

Katharine Landells

Solicitor, Withers LLP

In his article ‘A Judicial Safari tour of Ancillary Relief: J v J' published in October [2010] 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 [2009] EWHC 2654 (Fam), [2011] 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 [2011] Family Law journal.

To log on to Family Law Online or to request a free trial click here

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