Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
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