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

FAMILY PROVISION: Barron v Woodhead [2008] EWHC 810 (Ch)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:11 PM
Slug : barron-v-woodhead-2008-ewhc-810-ch
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 25, 2008, 08:44 AM
Article ID : 87295

(Chancery Division; HHJ Behrens; 25 June 2008)

A bankrupt husband who had allegedly transferred assets to his wife in order to avoid his creditors applied for reasonable provision from his deceased wife's estate, worth in the order of £360,000. The couple had been separated for about 2 years before the wife's death.

The most relevant factors were the fact that the husband, now 73, was likely to be homeless in 3 weeks, and that he had been bankrupt with the result that all his former assets, including the former matrimonial home, vested in the trustee in bankruptcy. There was no evidence that the husband would be in a position to re-house himself. On these facts the principal concern of the court was to ensure that the husband had a roof over his head and sufficient means for his every day needs; it was not appropriate, however, for there to be a substantial additional capital award, because the husband had plainly dissipated funds, had given money to wife for his own purposes, and had not made any claim for maintenance from her in the years following the separation. The husband was given a life interest in £100,000, plus a lump sum of £25,000 to defray the cost of moving home.

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