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
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF: A v B (Financial Relief: Agreements) [2005] EWHC 314 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:16 PM
Slug : a-v-b-financial-relief-agreements-2005-ewhc-314-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 17, 2005, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 87867

(17 January 2005; Black J; Family Division) [2005] 2 FLR 730

In considering what weight to give an agreement between the parties, it would be a mistake to treat Smith v Smith[2000] as altering the time honoured principles of Edgar v Edgar (1981) 2 FLR 19. It remained the case that an agreement should be taken into account under the heading of conduct, as one of the considerations to which the judge must give weight in applying the statutory criteria to the claim for ancillary relief. Although it was not the case that inherited property should be excluded from the ancillary relief exercise, in an appropriate case it was proper for the court to treat such property differently.

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