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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

DB v PB [2016] EWHC 3431 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 19:40 PM
Financial remedies – Jurisdiction – Prenuptial agreement – Prorogation – Married Women’s Property Act 1882
Orders were made in financial remedy proceedings including, inter alia, an order for sale of the matrimonial home pursuant to the Married Women’s Property Act 1882.
Slug : db-v-pb-2016-ewhc-3431-fam
Meta Title : DB v PB [2016] EWHC 3431 (Fam)
Meta Keywords : Financial remedies – Jurisdiction – Prenuptial agreement – Prorogation – Married Women’s Property Act 1882
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 25, 2017, 04:31 AM
Article ID : 113646

(Family Division, Francis J, 22 December 2016)

Financial remedies – Jurisdiction – Prenuptial agreement – Prorogation – Married Women’s Property Act 1882

Orders were made in financial remedy proceedings including, inter alia, an order for sale of the matrimonial home pursuant to the Married Women’s Property Act 1882.

The Swedish husband and wife were married for 14 years and lived in the UK from 2009. Prior to the marriage the husband provided the wife with two pre-nuptial agreements which she signed in Canada and the USA. Pursuant to the agreements each party would retain the assets held in their own names and would have no claim on the other party in the event of divorce. The agreement also contained a clause proroguing the jurisdiction of the Swedish court. The wife received legal advice that she should not sign the second document which she chose to ignore.

When the marriage broke down the wife applied for all forms of financial relief and for provision under Sch 1 of the Children Act 1989. The husband applied for an order for sale of the family home pursuant to s 17 of the Married Women’s Property Act 1882.

The total assets available amounted to £10.86m including the family home, the only asset held in the joint names of the parties, which had equity of £1,819,533, a Swedish property, an equity portfolio and bank account.

The court held that both parties consensually entered into one or more prenuptial agreements and that at the time they were entered into, the effect of the agreement(s) was not vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or undue pressure. Further, both were clear that the agreements contained a Swedish forum clause. Therefore, the English court’s jurisdiction was confined to dealing with the rights in property arising out of the marriage. The wife’s maintenance claims had to be stayed and determined in Sweden.

The effect of the pre-nuptial agreement would leave the wife with £656,000. Applying the reasoning in Radmacher to the circumstances of this case, such a division would be unacceptably unfair to the wife and would adversely affect the best interests of the children. It would be wrong to disregard the agreement entirely. The housing needs of the wife and children could not be met from the net value of the wife’s share in the family home. However, the terms of the Maintenance Regulation prevented the court from ordering the husband to make a lump sum payment to the wife for the purpose of purchasing a property for herself and the children.

As regards the Sch 1 claim, a sum of £2m would be fair to meet the children’s housing needs including costs of purchases. That sum would be available until 12 months after the children ceased full time education. Periodical payments of £95,000 pa would be made to the wife in respect of a carer’s allowance for herself and the children. An order for sale pursuant to the Married Women’s Property Act 1882 would be made and the net proceeds of sale divided equally between the parties.

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Case No: ZC15D00789
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 3431 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Date: 22 December 2016

Before:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FRANCIS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Between:

DB
Applicant

- and -

PB
Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Patrick Chamberlayne QC (instructed by Sears Tooth Solicitors) for the Applicant
Martin Pointer QC and Peter Mitchell (instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP Solicitors) for the Respondent


Hearing dates: 14-18 November 2016

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment 


DB v PB [2016] EWHC 3431 (Fam).rtf
Categories :
  • Financial Remedies
  • Judgments
Tags :
FLR_cover
Provider :
Product Bucket : Family
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from