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

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