Spotlight
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
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Will government vouchers prove a game-changer for family mediation?
Analysis of data to evaluate the government’s £500 family mediation voucher scheme is in full swing. It’s not yet complete but, as the initiative nears an end, the signs appear...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
Recently, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making misogyny a...
Guidance on allocation and gatekeeping for public children proceedings to remain in place
On 5 June 2020, the President of the Family Division made two amendments to his Guidance on Allocation and Gatekeeping for Care, Supervision and other Proceedings under Part IV of the Children...
Key challenges and the role of the family advisor in facilitating a successful succession plan
Kelly Noel-Smith, Private Client Partner, Forsters LLPRosie Schumm, Family Partner, Forsters LLPAnna Ferster, Family Associate, Forsters LLPHow best to pass on wealth to the next generation is a...
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