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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

CRIMINAL LAW/ANCILLARY RELIEF: Crown Prosecution Service v Richards [2006] EWCA Civ 849

Sep 29, 2018, 16:25 PM
Slug : crown-prosecution-service-v-richards-2006-ewca-civ-849
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 27, 2006, 06:46 AM
Article ID : 85161

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Moses and Hedley LJJ; 27 June 2006)

Where matrimonial assets were tainted and subject to confiscation, they should not ordinarily, as a matter of justice and public policy, be distributed. That was not to say that the court considering an application for financial provision under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 was deprived of jurisdiction by the existence of a confiscation order, nor to say that in no circumstances would an order distributing such assets be justified. However, the judge had been in error in thinking that the requirement to conduct a balancing exercise meant that in every case all factors were relevant. In a case such as this the knowledge of the wife, throughout her married life, that the lifestyle and the assets she enjoyed were derived from drug trafficking was dispositive.

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