Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
ANCILLARY RELIEF: B v B (Ancillary Relief)  EWCA Civ 543
Sep 29, 2018, 17:27 PM
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article :
Prioritise In Trending Articles :
Apr 7, 2008, 06:49 AM
Article ID :86581
(Court of Appeal; Sir Mark Potter P, Wall and Hughes LJJ; 19 March 2008)
One possible reason for departing from equality was recognised to be that there were assets that were the product not of efforts of different kinds during the marriage, but of inheritance by one spouse only. In this unusual case, in which the whole of the capital available to the parties had been brought into the marriage by the wife from a source entirely external to it, and in which the marriage had played no part, however indirectly, in the acquisition of any of the assets now available, dividing the assets approximately equally did not lead to a fair result. Although not a big money case, this was not a case in which the needs of the parties compelled the court to disregard the source of the assets.