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
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
Emotional harm and interim removal: how psychological thinking can support practice
Dr Ben Laskey ClinPsyD, AFBPS, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, The Psychology PartnershipGeorge Butler, Barrister at Law, 42 Bedford Row ChambersThe family courts are full of cases involving...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF: CR v CR [2007]

Sep 29, 2018, 17:39 PM
Slug : cr-v-cr-2007
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 22, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 89055

(Family Division; Bodey J; 22 October 2007)

It was important that the strands identified by the House of Lords in Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] 1 FLR 1186 as underlying the notion of fairness did not become elevated into separate 'heads of claim' or 'loss' independent of the words of the statute. Such an approach created a real danger of double counting. In the instant case, in which the husband had accumulated significant post-separation assets, there was no good reason for the wife to leave the marriage with less than half of the total assets at the date of the hearing, including the post-separation accruals. The wife's argument for a share of the future enhanced value of the husband's shares was rejected, and there was no compensation factor in this instance, however it would not be fair to ignore the big income imbalance in the case, and the wife would be awarded an additional capital payment, associated with the wife's reasonable requirements, generously assessed.

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