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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
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...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF: B v B [2007] EWHC 594 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:06 PM
Slug : b-v-b-2007-ewhc-594-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 24, 2007, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 85789

(Family Division; Sir Mark Potter P; 21 March 2007)

Following the couple's separation, the property developer husband moved to the US to develop his business there (apparently prosperously), taking with him £300,000 but leaving behind considerable debts in the UK. The judge awarded the wife the proceeds of all the English properties, after deduction of costs of sale and the balance of the UK tax, leaving the husband with £134,000 in property and debts that might amount to nearly £500,000, including a substantial liability to US tax. This was not a case in which the judge had inferred missing assets, although the judge had found that the husband's disclosure was not reliable. Instead the judge had drawn the inference that the husband had an available line of credit and a well-developed business acumen that would enable him to prosper.

Dismissing the husband's appeal, the court considered that the judge had been fair, given the husband's history of studied indifference to family obligations. The judge had been entitled to follow the line taken by Charles J in Rye v Rye [2002] 2 FLR 981; there had been ample material upon which the court had been entitled to conclude that the husband was capable of organising his affairs and juggling his finances so as to trade out his debt situation and that he would continue to enjoy a lifestyle superior to that of the wife and children he had left behind in the UK after transferring to the US substantial assets realised in order to finance his own needs. The judge's costs order against the husband was upheld, and was not capped notwithstanding that the wife was publicly funded.

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