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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
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